One of my friends who thinks truth is relative believes strongly in global warming. He is sure that if we don’t take drastic measures, the planet will undergo massive climate change; ice caps will melt, sea levels will rise, cities will be wiped out, species will go extinct, etc. I happen to disagree with this position; I think the idea of man-made global warming has been blown out of proportion, and that the measures taken to “protect our planet” are needlessly devastating our economy. My friend thinks that my position on the issue is dangerously irresponsible (hey, it’s mutual). But here’s the odd thing. Former Vice President Al Gore recently wrote a book about global warming called an inconvenient truth. In other words, it’s an inconvenient truth that we’re in danger of destroying our planet. We’ve got to do something about it! So, I must ask my friend, “Isn’t truth supposed to be relative?” I happen to disagree that man is causing global warming, or that he can even do anything about it. So, couldn’t I say that the inconvenient truth of global warming is, well, not true to me? After all, if nothing can be absolutely true unless every mind agrees on it (since truth is relative to the mind), then global warming isn’t absolutely true. In fact, we could just get rid of it entirely, by all changing our minds and denying that it exists. Seriously! It’s an inconvenient truth, right? Well, then, just forget about it and deny that it’s a problem; since truth is relative to the mind, it won’t be true any more if we all hold hands and deny it together.
If I presented this idea to my friend, he would likely argue that I’m playing some sort of word-switching game. “That’s totally different!” he would say. “Global warming is reality, not just someone’s opinion.”
“So global warming is true, then?”
“Yes!”
When my friend says “Global warming is true,” he defines true as real, and truth as reality. But when he says that the Bible is only true to me, not him, he is defining true (to) as an opinion (of). But that’s not what I mean when I say that the Bible is true. I don’t mean that it’s just my opinion; I mean that the Bible’s claims are reality. So, we’re using completely different definitions of the word truth when we’re talking about my beliefs (the Bible), but when we talk about his beliefs, we can agree that truth should be defined as reality. So, whether global warming can destroy the world or not is a question of reality, but whether or not the world will be one day judged by a Holy God who will not tolerate sin is only a matter of opinion.
I think there is a double standard going on, albeit an unintentional one. Should I point out to my friend that he is actually the one who is switching his definitions in his words, by carefully explaining to him what I’ve talked about in these essays? If I did so, would he understand, or would he reject it out of hand and continue to insist that I’m the one guilty of word-switching? I hope we can come to a common understanding, but I’m not optimistic. You see, if he were to realize that he’s playing word-switching games, he’d be only one step away from realizing that the whole idea of relative truth depends on faulty semantics – and if that happened, his whole way of viewing the world would have to change.
That is not an easy thing for anyone.