"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.

Absolute Truth vs. Relativism

While absolute truth is a logical necessity, there are some religious orientations (atheistic humanists, for example) who argue against the existence of absolute truth. Humanism's exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes." Humanists believe one should do, as one feels is right.

Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity

You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth…

"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.

"No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement is true.

There are philosophers who actually spend countless hours toiling over thick volumes written on the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume they think the text is meaningful! Then there are those philosophy teachers who teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth." Then they turn around and grade the papers!

Absolute Truth - Morality

Morality is a facet of absolute truth. Thus, relativists often declare, "It's wrong for you to impose your morals on me." By declaring something is wrong, the relativist is contradicting himself by imposing his morals upon you.

You might hear, "There is no right, there is no wrong!" You must ask, is that statement right or wrong?

If you catch a relativist in the act of doing something they know is absolutely wrong, and you try to point it out to them, they may respond in anger, "Truth is relative! There's no right and there's no wrong! We should be able to do whatever we want!" If that is a true statement and there is no right and there is no wrong, and everyone should be able to do whatever they want, then why have they become angry? What basis do they have for their anger? You can't be appalled by an injustice, or anything else for that matter, unless an absolute has somehow been violated.

Relativists often argue, "Everybody can believe whatever they want!" It makes us wonder, why are they arguing? We find it amusing that relativists are the ones who want to argue about relativism.

If you attempt to tell a relativist the difference between right and wrong, you will no doubt hear, "None of that is true! We make our own reality!" If that's true, and we all create our own reality, then our statement of moral accountability is merely a figment of the relativist's imagination. If a relativist has a problem with a statement of absolute morality, the relativist should take the issue up with himself.

Absolute Truth - The Conclusion

We all know there is absolute truth. It seems the more we argue against it, the more we prove its existence. Reality is absolute whether you feel like being cogent or not. Philosophically, relativism is contradictory. Practically, relativism is anarchy. The world is filled with absolute truth.

A relativist maintains that everyone should be able to believe and do whatever he wants. Of course, this view is emotionally satisfying, until that person comes home to find his house has been robbed, or someone seeks to hurt him, or someone cuts in front of him in line. No relativist will come home to find his house robbed and say, "Oh, how wonderful that the burglar was able to fulfill his view of reality by robbing my house. Who am I to impose my view of right and wrong on this wonderful burglar?" Quite the contrary, the relativist will feel violated just like anyone else. And then, of course, it's OK for him to be a relativist, as long as the "system" acts in an absolutist way by protecting his "unalienable rights."

"All is relative" has become one of the slogans of our generation. In the Western World, multitudes have rejected the possibility that such a thing as absolute truth could exist. We have most likely heard of the blind men who examined an elephant. One described it as being "like a hose" while another described it as being "like a tree". It all depended on their point of view. This story, and others like it, are cited to show that no absolute truth exists, and that everything depends on the viewpoint of the one investigating. We often hear phrases like "that may be true for you, but its not true for me". Truth is seen as a personal preference or perception that cannot extend beyond a person's personal boundaries. Of course, if this is so, there are no final answers to the "Big Issues" of life. It goes without saying that if this view of truth is correct, there can be no Ultimate Personal God such as the one described in the Bible.
Shirley MacLaine, the famous actress who as a high priestess of the New Age movement now claims to be "god", is just one of many who claim that there is no such thing as absolute, objective truth. Many philosophers and scientists also think this way. It is clear that the majority of popular media personalities assume and promote this. Through them, generally speaking, the man in the street also assumes that all enlightened people know this to be so. But is it really so? Is it really true? How can it be if there is no such thing as objective truth that holds for all people?
Does it matter?
The answer to the question of absolute truth turns out to be very important, not only in drawing religious conclusions, but also in the matter of ethics. Ethics is important to all of us, because it deals with the question of what is right and wrong. Every person hates some kind of activities. But if there is no such thing as absolute truth, then there is no ultimate moral rightness or wrongness about anything. It may be "right for you" but that doesn't mean it is "right for me".
Such an idea is very appealing to many, but if taken to its logical extreme it would soon prove disastrous. For example, what if it is "right for me" to ignore traffic lights, even when they are red? In this way I put the life of others at risk. What if it is "right for me" to go on a suicide bombing mission in a heavily populated area amongst people whom I consider to be my enemies? I may even be fully convinced that what I am doing is right. Can it really be right in any sense of the word? If there is no such thing as absolute truth, it could be. But how can we live with such a situation?
Most people would pretty quickly concede that a person will have to give up some of his arbitrary personal preferences. Some philosophers have sought to ascribe to human government the power to decide what is right and wrong, at least in some situations. But can notions of "right" and "wrong" really be derived from the decisions of politicians - however enlightened?
If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then no-one can really say, "He should do that" or "She shouldn't do that". All you can say is, "A lot of people feel that this action would not make people feel good". So you can't say, "Multinational companies should not exploit the poor and destroy the environment". If relativists are right, a company executive might respond, "That may be true for you, but it is certainly not true for us". Do you see the ethical consequences of throwing out the belief in absolute truth?
Logical Contradictions in the Denial of Absolute Truth
No one has ever proven that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Those who hold this view simply assume that it is so. Such assumptions prove nothing. Why should we blindly accept them? This is nothing more than "begging the question".
But more than this, there are logical contradictions and inconsistencies in denying absolute truth. One might even be fair in saying that people who deny absolute truth are guilty of hypocrisy. Why is this?
Is the statement, "There is no absolute truth" absolutely true? If it is, then there is something that is absolutely true - that statement itself. If it isn't absolutely true, then why insist that we should all believe it?
We can illustrate through a small conversation.
Joe: "There is no such thing as abolute truth."
Mary: "Are you sure?"
Joe: "Yes I am."
Mary: "Are you absolutely sure about that?"
Joe: "Er, yes, I mean, no - well, maybe."
Is the statement, "All truth is relative" only relatively true? It may be relatively true for many, but if it is only relatively true, there must exist someone for whom it is absolutely true. But if that is so, then not all things are relative.
Similar Fallacies
Based on the falsehood that "All is relative", many people say, "It is alright to believe what you want, as long as you don't try to impose it on others". But this statement itself is a belief about what is right and wrong. Those who speak out this belief most definitely want to impose it on others. This is because they do not want to have to deal with any conflict in the realm of religious or philosophical ideas. It is actually a form of cowardice and laziness. It is also a hypocritical view. It sets up a standard of behaviour which it insists on for others - thus violating the very thing it pretends to uphold.
It is easy to spout out statements like "the material world is an illusion" or "there is no such thing as truth" but no one consistently lives according to that kind of philosophy. If they did, they would soon be dead.
Conclusion
It is logically inconsistent to deny the reality of absolute truth. Even if everyone in the world denied its existence, they would all be wrong, as shown by the arguments above. But if logic itself has no ultimate validity, there is no objective basis for communication, rationality and so much that could give meaning to our world. It is certain that we would never have made any scientific or technological progress at all if we had started out with this kind of thinking.
But if there is ultimate objective truth, what is it? Even if we know it exists, does not imply that any person on earth actually has it. Everything ought to be examined and tested, as even the Bible says (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Hence there are "Big Issues" which ought to be considered by all men. Questions like, "Is there life after death?", "Am I an accident or a creation of God?", "What should I be doing?" all make sense only if objective truth and reality exist.
Christians are not calling people to become gullible, or to throw their minds out by taking an unreasonable "leap of faith". Our faith is not rooted in mystical sayings that sound profound but actually have no real meaning. It is rooted in historical events, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We have good reason to believe all men will die or face the judgment of God when Christ returns. There will be no escape from reality then. This is an unpopular idea, and may drive actually drive some away who are not willing to really investigate and consider honestly and deeply, with courage.
If there is a God, He knows the absolute truth. He is not like the blind men that could only feel part of the elephant. God has the power to communicate things to us that are absolutely true. We may not like them all - they may not all appeal to our subjective tastes, but we should at least be willing to search it out until we have good reasons for being convinced one way or the other.
If absolute truth exists, then when two religious teachings disagree, they cannot both be right, in their own way. At least one, possibly both, are at least partially mistaken. Most religion is wrong today. Even the confusion that exists in the Church of Jesus Christ shows how far the forces of evil have actually penetrated our world.
The answers to the Big Issues will not be found by those who are lazy, or are just content to believe in the traditions of their fathers. Why should the truth about religion depend on the sexual association of two people?
I do not claim to have all the answers, but I do believe that the answers are out there. "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; the glory of kings is to search out a matter". I am very interested in the perceptions of others. I can learn things from others. My own blindness needs to be removed also. I hope that you will write back and dialog with me and others in the future. God bless you.

Question: "Is there such a thing as absolute truth / universal truth?"

Answer: In order to understand absolute or universal truth, we must begin by defining truth. Truth, according to the dictionary, is “conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true.” Some people would say that there is no true reality, only perceptions and opinions. Others would argue that there must be some absolute reality or truth.

One view says that there are no absolutes that define reality. Those who hold this view believe everything is relative to something else, and thus there can be no actual reality. Because of that, there are ultimately no moral absolutes, no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative, right or wrong. This view leads to “situational ethics,” the belief that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation. There is no right or wrong; therefore, whatever feels or seems right at the time and in that situation is right. Of course, situational ethics leads to a subjective, “whatever feels good” mentality and lifestyle, which has a devastating effect on society and individuals. This is postmodernism, creating a society that regards all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equally valid.

The other view holds that there are indeed absolute realities and standards that define what is true and what is not. Therefore, actions can be determined to be either right or wrong by how they measure up to those absolute standards. If there are no absolutes, no reality, chaos ensues. Take the law of gravity, for instance. If it were not an absolute, we could not be certain we could stand or sit in one place until we decided to move. Or if two plus two did not always equal four, the effects on civilization would be disastrous. Laws of science and physics would be irrelevant, and commerce would be impossible. What a mess that would be! Thankfully, two plus two does equal four. There is absolute truth, and it can be found and understood.

To make the statement that there is no absolute truth is illogical. Yet, today, many people are embracing a cultural relativism that denies any type of absolute truth. A good question to ask people who say, “There is no absolute truth” is this: “Are you absolutely sure of that?” If they say “yes,” they have made an absolute statement—which itself implies the existence of absolutes. They are saying that the very fact there is no absolute truth is the one and only absolute truth.

Beside the problem of self-contradiction, there are several other logical problems one must overcome to believe that there are no absolute or universal truths. One is that all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore, cannot logically make absolute negative statements. A person cannot logically say, “There is no God” (even though many do so), because, in order to make such a statement, he would need to have absolute knowledge of the entire universe from beginning to end. Since that is impossible, the most anyone can logically say is “With the limited knowledge I have, I do not believe there is a God.”

Another problem with the denial of absolute truth/universal truth is that it fails to live up to what we know to be true in our own consciences, our own experiences, and what we see in the real world. If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then there is nothing ultimately right or wrong about anything. What might be “right” for you does not mean it is “right” for me. While on the surface this type of relativism seems to be appealing, what it means is that everybody sets his own rules to live by and does what he thinks is right. Inevitably, one person’s sense of right will soon clash with another’s. What happens if it is “right” for me to ignore traffic lights, even when they are red? I put many lives at risk. Or I might think it is right to steal from you, and you might think it is not right. Clearly, our standards of right and wrong are in conflict. If there is no absolute truth, no standard of right and wrong that we are all accountable to, then we can never be sure of anything. People would be free to do whatever they want—murder, rape, steal, lie, cheat, etc., and no one could say those things would be wrong. There could be no government, no laws, and no justice, because one could not even say that the majority of the people have the right to make and enforce standards upon the minority. A world without absolutes would be the most horrible world imaginable.

From a spiritual standpoint, this type of relativism results in religious confusion, with no one true religion and no way of having a right relationship with God. All religions would therefore be false because they all make absolute claims regarding the afterlife. It is not uncommon today for people to believe that two diametrically opposed religions could both be equally “true,” even though both religions claim to have the only way to heaven or teach two totally opposite “truths.” People who do not believe in absolute truth ignore these claims and embrace a more tolerant universalism that teaches all religions are equal and all roads lead to heaven. People who embrace this worldview vehemently oppose evangelical Christians who believe the Bible when it says that Jesus is “the way, and the truth, and the life” and that He is the ultimate manifestation of truth and the only way one can get to heaven (John 14:6).

Tolerance has become the one cardinal virtue of the postmodern society, the one absolute, and, therefore, intolerance is the only evil. Any dogmatic belief—especially a belief in absolute truth—is viewed as intolerance, the ultimate sin. Those who deny absolute truth will often say that it is all right to believe what you want, as long as you do not try to impose your beliefs on others. But this view itself is a belief about what is right and wrong, and those who hold this view most definitely do try to impose it on others. They set up a standard of behavior which they insist others follow, thereby violating the very thing they claim to uphold—another self-contradicting position. Those who hold such a belief simply do not want to be accountable for their actions. If there is absolute truth, then there are absolute standards of right and wrong, and we are accountable to those standards. This accountability is what people are really rejecting when they reject absolute truth.

The denial of absolute truth/universal truth and the cultural relativism that comes with it are the logical result of a society that has embraced the theory of evolution as the explanation for life. If naturalistic evolution is true, then life has no meaning, we have no purpose, and there cannot be any absolute right or wrong. Man is then free to live as he pleases and is accountable to no one for his actions. Yet no matter how much sinful men deny the existence of God and absolute truth, they still will someday stand before Him in judgment. The Bible declares that “…what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:19-22).

Is there any evidence for the existence of absolute truth? Yes. First, there is the human conscience, that certain “something” within us that tells us the world should be a certain way, that some things are right and some are wrong. Our conscience convinces us there is something wrong with suffering, starvation, rape, pain, and evil, and it makes us aware that love, generosity, compassion, and peace are positive things for which we should strive. This is universally true in all cultures in all times. The Bible describes the role of the human conscience in Romans 2:14-16: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.”

The second evidence for the existence of absolute truth is science. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge, the study of what we know and the quest to know more. Therefore, all scientific study must by necessity be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities existing in the world and these realities can be discovered and proven. Without absolutes, what would there be to study? How could one know that the findings of science are real? In fact, the very laws of science are founded on the existence of absolute truth.

The third evidence for the existence of absolute truth/universal truth is religion. All the religions of the world attempt to give meaning and definition to life. They are born out of mankind’s desire for something more than simple existence. Through religion, humans seek God, hope for the future, forgiveness of sins, peace in the midst of struggle, and answers to our deepest questions. Religion is really evidence that mankind is more than just a highly evolved animal. It is evidence of a higher purpose and of the existence of a personal and purposeful Creator who implanted in man the desire to know Him. And if there is indeed a Creator, then He becomes the standard for absolute truth, and it is His authority that establishes that truth.

Fortunately, there is such a Creator, and He has revealed His truth to us through His Word, the Bible. Knowing absolute truth/universal truth is only possible through a personal relationship with the One who claims to be the Truth—Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed to be the only way, the only truth, the only life and the only path to God (John 14:6). The fact that absolute truth does exist points us to the truth that there is a sovereign God who created the heavens and the earth and who has revealed Himself to us in order that we might know Him personally through His Son Jesus Christ. That is the absolute truth.