Truth, what an interesting thing! Everyone seems concerned with truth nowadays, especially in a politicized society such as ours where electoral and ideological disputes seem to focus mainly on differing truths, and getting those truths recognized not just popularly but legislatively as well. The rise of postmodern and relativistic schools of thought1 have also contributed to the fragmentation of what it means for something to be true, how truth is studied, and if truth is a valuable property for something to even have. Now, of course, like all schools of relativistic and nihilistic thinking, epistemic relativism is self-defeating, for it claims that, “All truths are relative,” which is essentially claiming, “All truths are relative…except the truth that all truths are relative.” Since explaining epistemic relativism requires a kernel of epistemic objectivism, since the very foundation of the system is grounded on a contradiction, that pulls the rug from out under it and can rightfully lead us to doubt if the whole edifice of a fundamentally epistemic-relativist system is trustworthy (which it isn’t). However, just because it makes sense that something can “conform to fact or actuality” (as a dictionary defines it) this doesn’t mean we know how something can “conform to fact or actuality.”
This is where epistemological theories come into play, certain theories and conceptualizations which endeavor to explain exactly that, how truth works, not just that truth is. The most prominent theory of truth has to be the correspondence theory, which seems to me to be argued for by most intellectuals and presumed by most civilians. Correspondence theory was aptly summarized by Thomas Aquinas in his statement that “truth is the adequation of thought and thing,”2 “adequation” here being Aquinas’ fancy byword for “equivalence” or, as we may simply put it, “correspondence.” If truth statement X corresponds with fact Y, then X is true. For example, if I were to say “Today is the day before Christmas Eve,” then that statement would be true only if it corresponds to the fact that it is, in fact, presently December 23rd. Simple enough. Indeed, around 50% of university philosophers accept the correspondence theory.3
Of course, nothing in philosophy goes unquestioned and without thousands of pages of controversy, so it’s not like the correspondence theory is a wizened old and beloved king, as its only half-acceptance by academia implies. Other than postmodern theories (which we already debunked, so we don’t need to give them any further consideration) there are coherence theories. As summarized by Spiegel and Cowan, the coherence theory asserts that “a proposition is true if and only if it coheres with the set of beliefs that a person holds.”4 Clearly, coherence theory is concerned with if truth statements cohere with each other, not if they just correspond to a specific datum. Coherence theory, while the runner-up, is not all that popular, and you don’t really hear people going around claiming, “Well my truths all fit together,” although maybe in ideological confrontation where “whataboutism” and “hypocrisy” abounds we see something akin to this. Indeed, the greatest fault with coherence theory, one propounded by Bertrand Russell (a prominent correspondencist),5 is the fact that coherence theory essentially opens the door to relativism in its intrinsic subjectivity (as what truths cohere differ from person to person, as each person has a different matrix of truths he is aware of and holds to). As explained in three points by Cowan and Spiegel,
“First, it appears to entail that contradictory propositions can both be true. … Second, for the same reasons, the coherence theory implies that truth is relative. … Third, the coherence theory of truth cuts the knower off from the world.”6
Owing to these issues, and the timeless specter of Aristotelian logic (and its principle of noncontradiction), coherence theory has been stunted in its acceptance (especially as most philosophers/academicians looking for relativism turn to postmodernism).
From my earliest days of looking into philosophy, mainly through reading apologetics and Christian worldview books,7 I was aware of the correspondence theory, and found it the most satisfying. Relativism is a non-choice, and what makes more sense than that truth should correspond with external reality? The only obstacle would be external-world skepticism, but that isn’t a sturdy idea either.8 So, for some time I accepted correspondence theory, like many others. However, as my theological studies pressed on and what I learned began to permeate more and more of my understanding of things not just “merely” biblical, I came to reconsider what I held regarding epistemology. Perhaps the turning point was reading Treydon Lunot’s article “The Majesty of the Divine Mind,” which is an exploration of how Triniatrian perichoresis and divine energies can make sense of the ontological nature of knowledge (it’s kind of highbrow theo-philosophical stuff, but if you give it enough effort you’ll probably get it). I’m not sure of the exact date, but I’m sure that a change happened.
Here’s what I thought: certainly, truths should correspond to some sort of objective reality, but is that all truth needs to do? I’ll be forthright, my thinking was kindled by my reconsideration and appreciation for Trinitarian theology that my theological studies (particularly of this year) engendered. The Trinity undergirds all of reality, as an eternal love relationship (a perichoresis/circumincession), and so shouldn’t all of reality interpenetrate itself?9 In other words, shouldn’t reality constitute a physical and metaphysical community?
Let me cut to the chase. This is what has led me to develop a sort of “coherent correspondence theory of truth” (“epistemic holism” might be workable as well), or wherein actually corresponding logical dictums to factual datums are provided with additional value in not existing in isolation but in coherent with a whole framework of truth. Take the Trinity itself. The Trinity has three principles, Father, Son, and Spirit, and they each correspond to a certain fact, but these facts are inherently coherent (or relational) the Son is grounded as the One Who relates to the Father as His Son and the Spirit as the Son (relationally), and the Father is grounded as the One Who relates to the Son as His Father and the Spirit as the Father. The divine Persons at once correspond to certain facts, facts which also instantaneously cohere with other facts. Again, if we are to see the Trinity in Their Creation, why shouldn’t we see Their imprint in the very structure of reality itself (such as in its epistemology)?
Numerous systems already work like this. Boolean algebra,10 for example, begins with the grounding principles of Aristotelian logic, and then erect a mathematical superstructure wherein these logical truths cohere with a grand algebraic system. Greg Boyd’s cruciform theology11 begins with the truth that the Cross is the supreme revelation of God, and then has this fact cohere with a vast assemblage of other theological propositions (such as the Atonement, the Incarnation, salvation, glorification, the economy of the Holy Spirit, etc.). And what are physicists infatuated with if not the notion of a grand unifying theory/theory of everything to pull together into a coherent whole their various corresponding truths of physical reality (like the strong nuclear force, the coupling constant, Einstenian relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.).12
What all this reflects is the Trinitarian ontological foundation of reality, and thus of epistemology. If the Father, Son, and Spirit are at once Themselves uniquely and likewise in inalienable, intrinsic relation with one another, then it makes sense for, in reality, different truths to be true in and of themselves (2+2=4 is true and the law of noncontradiction is true) but to also ultimately relate to each other (like how mathematical and logical truisms are combined in Boolean algebra). As Lunot puts it,
The divine energies are mutually interior, and this mutual interiority is both essential (they are energies of the one divine essence) and constitutive. In other words, the relations of the divine energies are, in a sense, perichoretic. Just as the three divine persons are distinct yet mutually interior, the divine energies are not reducible to one another, yet necessarily subsist together.
This mutual interiority applies both to Persons as well as to their uncreated energies, and, as Lunot also argues, since these energies come to constitute our teleology, our ontology, our ethics, and all other things then these energies, fundamentally communal (mutually interior), necessitate that these concepts bear a communal imprint as well (and now this is me talking). Ontology and teleology are mutually interior to each other just as the Son and Spirit are to each other just as ecology demonstrates the entire biosphere is (as a vast, interconnected, fine-tuned system).
So, this is why I find it important that my studies aren’t just true on their own, but form a holistic metanarrative with the rest of my studies. My history relates to my theology relates to my anthropology relates to my ethics relates to my economics relates to all else. I believe that, in adopting a coherent correspondence theory of truth, we will better be able to both apprehend and appreciate the divine interconnectedness of our world, and, just as it’s done for me, better understand the thrice-holy Godhead from Whom all these wonders flow.
See Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism; Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind; and Douglas Groothius, Truth Decay.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I. Q.16, A.2 arg. 2.
See David Bourget and David Chalmers, “What Do Philosophers Believe?” Philosophical Studies 170:3, 465-500. That less-than impressive near-majority is likely owed to the influence of postmodern and liberal theories in modern academia (see Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind).
Steven Cowan and James Spiegel, The Love of Wisdom, 39.
Bertrand Russell, “On the Nature of Truth,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 7:228-49.
Cowan and Spiegel, The Love of Wisdom, 40. For some more concerning the third claim: “The first thing to note about the coherence theory of truth is that it analyzes the notion of truth without any reference to the real, external world. One does not need, on this theory, to look out into the world to determine whether a belief one holds is true” (39).
Such as To Everyone an Answer and The Case for Faith.
For a truncated take down of skepticism by yours truly see “Whose Eye Beholds Beauty,” fn. 3.
These are observations contingent on a philosophical background of communal ontology. See also Peter Leithart, Traces of the Trinity.
George Boole, An Investigation of the Laws of Thought.
Gregory Boyd, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God.
The best attempt at a “Trinitarian physics” (contra the more popular Trinitarian metaphysics) is found in the late Anglican theologian John Polkinghorne’s academic work. See, e.g., Science and the Trinity, The Trinity and an Entangled World, Quarks, Chaos & Christianity.