What is your view of ultimate truth? Everyone has one, of course. Some people may not be so obvious about it, but they still have one. Let us consider the options.

Some people may insist that ultimate truth doesn't exist. How do they arrive at this view? Is it because they have carefully examined all of the available evidence, and ruled out all other possibilities? I doubt this very much. For one thing, how could a finite creature such as a human being possibly examine all of the available evidence? Perhaps they have looked at a little evidence, and examined it very carefully, without drawing any false inferences in the process. After all, isn't this the best any of us can do? Yet even the tiniest portion of evidence, in my view, certainly does not disprove the existence of ultimate truth. Therefore, it seems to me that any who proclaim the nonexistence of ultimate truth are unjustified in doing so. How can such people ever be absolutely sure of themselves?

Then we have those who insist that while ultimate truth exists, it is unknowable. Although I would agree that we have no way of directly verifying with our senses any kind of ultimate truth, this does not preclude us from knowing it indirectly through what we can perceive and experience. On what basis, though, could we conclude it is unknowable unless we have carefully and flawlessly examined all of the evidence?

Another option may be that ultimate truth exists, and that it is within ourselves. Are we really to have so much faith in such finite, temporal creatures? Do we really have the credibility to warrant such a conclusion? Also, if one believes that ultimate truth is within oneself, would it not be reasonable that everyone else agrees? If someone else does not agree, who is correct? This seems to me like it would be a completely untenable situation.

What about the view that ultimate truth exists, is knowable, and is outside of ourselves? Obviously the prime candidates for ultimate truth would be the world's various religious traditions. Do we have any hints about which, if any, of these is correct? Recognizing the fact that various people who claim to be members of these traditions misrepresent their causes, we need to go to the original sources as being their legitimate representations.

One interesting thing I have discovered is that of all the world's religious traditions, only two seem to have two key ingredients clearly present in their stated truth claims: multiple eyewitnesses to various extraordinary events or revelations, and verification from independent sources of a multitude of historical facts. All other traditions, so it seems, demand that people follow someone who claimed to receive divine revelation even though the alleged revelation is without eyewitnesses to directly verify it, and though the alleged revelation lacks verification from independent sources. What religious traditions have these key ingredients? They are Judaism and Christianity, and, I am quite sure, no others.

To be sure, mysteries abound in these traditions, and many of us do not pretend to have all the answers. Simply because mysteries are present, and some things are beyond human comprehension, however, we must not conclude they are untrue. It would be much wiser on our part to remember that the Scriptures reveal a transcendent God who is ultimately beyond our comprehension, whose ways we are not able to fathom, yet who has made Himself knowable to finite creatures such as ourselves (Isaiah 55:8-9).

One final note. Although I have serious concerns about those who reject the Judeo-Christian traditions as having their origin in ultimate truth, it is not my prerogative to hold it against them simply because they have a different world view. They are like those with a disease who have rejected the cure. Why should one continue to attempt to treat them when others who need the cure have not rejected it?

For a related discussion, see my article, "What is Your Ultimate Authority?"

Click here to go my home page.