Your Truth vs. Reality: How We Lost the Meaning of Truth

Have you ever heard someone say, that's your truth, but my truth is different? It sounds humble, tolerant, maybe even loving. But deep down, there's something about that statement that doesn't sit right. Because if truth is whatever anyone says it is, then no one can ever be wrong. And if no one could ever be wrong, then no one could ever really be right either. The idea of truth suddenly loses its meaning. That's the tension at the heart of one of the most important philosophical and spiritual questions of our time. What is truth? Is it absolute, or is it relative? Is it fixed and universal, or is it flexible and personal? Thomas Aquinas said that truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. This is a classical definition that has helped shape centuries of philosophical thought. For Christians, this isn't just a question of abstract philosophy though. It's a question about the very nature of reality itself. Let's start with something simple. When you say that a statement is true, what do you actually mean? To paraphrase Aquinas, truth, in its most basic sense, is what corresponds to reality. If I say the sky is blue, that statement is true because it accurately reflects reality. If I say the sky is green, that statement is false because the sky is blue. This idea that truth is what corresponds to the way things really are has been held by philosophers for thousands of years. Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher known as the father of science and the father of western logic, wrote, To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false. While to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true. Likewise, Saint Augustine said, If something is true, it is by its very nature eternal. Truth itself is neither greater nor lesser in any place, and it is not equal to anything but itself. These classical definitions remind us that truth is not invented, but discovered. But, in recent decades, both pop culture and in many segments of academia have shifted away from this definition. Truth used to be seen as something outside of us, something that we find out or discover. Now, it's often treated as something inside of us, something you or I create and define. This shift in culture represents a move of what philosophers have traditionally called ontological understanding of truth. Truth as what is. To a more epistemological one. Truth as what is perceived or believed. Ontological truth depends on the nature of reality. Epistemological truth depends on the knower's perception. In simple terms, people used to ask, What is real? Now they ask, What feels real to me? When culture treats truth as merely personal, it erases the crucial distinction between what is real and what is merely believed. These ideas, in my opinion, slip into people's way of thinking and affect more than just pop psychology. Because even in areas like science, humans interpret facts and outcomes through a worldview. Put it this way. Truth is so often treated as context-bound or individually defined. Then the criteria for distinguishing between true and false become less stable and harder to adjudicate publicly and privately. Quick trigger warning for you guys. This video is not meant to be a comprehensive critique or a full explanation of truth or of Christianity. These ideas are broad and complex. But this video introduces the foundational themes that we'll explore more fully in this series. We welcome criticism and discussion. So please feel free to comment below. Thanks. The change in how truth is perceived or defined didn't happen overnight. It's a result of a long intellectual drift that began with the rejection of absolute truth. The idea that some things are true for all people, in all places, and at all times, regardless of opinion or feelings. Absolute truth means that reality doesn't bend to fit our preferences. This drift can be traced through thinkers like Descartes, who shifted the foundation of truth from divine revelation to human reason. Hume introduced radical skepticism that undermined confidence in objective knowledge. And Nietzsche, in The Will to Power, said there are no facts, only interpretations. So not all of these men were relativists, but their ideas contributed to the overall gradual shift. Over time, this progression moved western culture away from a belief that truth is something real and unchanging, toward the idea that it is individual, relative, and can be a tool of power. So we all know that 2 plus 2 equals 4, whether we believe it or not. But relative truth, the idea that truth changes depending on culture, time, or individual perspective, says something different. It treats truth more like a mirror than a math equation. It reflects our personal viewpoint, rather than revealing the way that the world actually is. And I do want to clarify that not every moral or cultural disagreement amounts to relativism. For instance, pluralism acknowledges a diversity of beliefs and practices, while relativism denies that any universal standard exists, by which those differences can be evaluated. Pluralism allows meaningful discussion and debate. Relativism ultimately shuts it down. Also, relativism is not the same thing as subjectivism. Subjectivism says truth is whatever, I believe. Relativism often claims that truth is socially constructed or context-bound. So both deny objective truth, but they do so in different ways. One centers truth in the individual, and the other in culture or community. So there's two main kinds of relativism that shape our culture today. The first is moral relativism. The belief that moral truths are not fixed, but depend on culture or personal preference. According to this view, what's right for one society might not be right for another, and no one can claim moral superiority. But moral relativism quickly collapses under its own weight. If morality is entirely subjective, then no action, no matter how cruel or unjust, can be universally condemned. You can't justifiably say genocide is wrong, or slavery is evil, or honesty is good, because that would be imposing your culture's moral standard on other people. A world without moral absolutes isn't a freer world, it's a chaotic one. The second form is epistemological relativism. This is the belief that knowledge itself is subjective, and that what's true for you may not be true for me. It sounds open-minded, but it's actually self-defeating as well. If all truth is relative, then the claim that all truth is relative must also be relative, meaning that it can't be true. Even if someone avoids making absolute claims, the very act of reasoning assumes stable logic and shared meaning, which are objective frameworks. And to be fair, some relativists will still condemn atrocities like genocide from within their inner subjective or cultural frameworks, but without a universal moral standard, such condemnation becomes preference, not principle. Philosophers like Michel Foucault and Richard Rorty helped popularize this view in the 20th century, arguing that truth is shaped by language, power, and social context. But if truth is merely a tool of power, then justice is reduced to whatever the power declares it to be. Skepticism about ultimate truth ultimately leaves us with no stable ground to challenge real injustice. Thomas Nagel, a secular philosopher, pushes back against this trend by arguing that objectivity requires us to step outside of our own perspective to see the world as it really is, not as we wish it to be. Without this effort, truth becomes indistinguishable from opinion. So where moral relativism denies a shared standard for right and wrong, epistemological relativism denies a shared standard for truth itself, even about right and wrong. Relativism saws off the very branch it's sitting on. If nothing can be known for sure, then even relativism can't be known for sure. It's a system that collapses the moment you take it to its fullest extent and implications. If truth collapses without a foundation, we must ask, what kind of foundation can actually sustain it? Here's what God's word says about truth. The Bible presents a fundamentally different view of truth. In scripture, truth isn't just a concept, it's also a person. In John 14, 6, Jesus says, I am the way, the truth, and the life. He doesn't just say he knows the truth or teaches the truth. He says that he is the truth. It means that truth isn't simply a set of abstract propositions, but it's rooted in the very nature of God. Jesus embodies truth because he perfectly reveals who God is. In John 17, 17, Jesus prays to the Father saying, sanctify them by the truth. Your word is truth. Here, he connects the word of God to the word of transformation. God's word isn't just true, it is the truth, the standard by which all other truth claims are measured. When we say scripture is authoritative, we mean it's not merely one voice among many, but the voice of the one who defines reality. Proverbs chapter 30, verse 5 says this, every word of God proves true. He is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Psalms 12, 6 adds, the words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground purified seven times. These verses affirm the unshakable purity and reliability of God's word. So this means that truth is consistent because God's nature is consistent. Numbers 23, 19 says, God is not a man that he should lie or the son of man that he should change his mind. In other words, truth isn't conditional or evolving because neither is God. He doesn't adapt to cultural shifts or moral fashions. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The God who spoke the world into existence is a same God who speaks through his word today. His truth is as steady as his character. Again, in Romans 1, 25 warns that humanity exchanged the truth about God for a lie. This is the theological heart of relativism, not merely confusion, but rebellion. To deny God's truth is not only an intellectual error, but a moral and spiritual one. So consider this, if God is the source of all truth and reality itself flows from his nature, then the physical world is consistent, observable, repeatable, and obeys laws because it was created by a God of order. In a similar way, the moral world has absolutes because it was designed by a God of righteousness. To deny absolute truth is ultimately to deny the character of God. And that's why relativism isn't just a philosophical error, it's spiritual rebellion. It doesn't merely distort ideas, it distorts worship. In Colossians 2, 3, Paul writes that in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. That means every field of study, every search for meaning, every question about morality or reality ultimately finds its resolution in him. Jesus is the foundation of all truth, scientific, historical, moral, and spiritual. And when you remove him from the picture, knowledge itself begins to unravel. Thanks for watching Warrior Manor, I'm Chris and I'm glad you're here. Please like and subscribe to keep up with our content. Again, this is the first video in a series of videos and part one of the introduction, so please stay tuned and keep the discussion going in the comments.