When I think of the term, "absolute truth," I think of it as a "fact," as something unalterable. For me, it's a logical reality, but there are religious organizations who would argue against the notion that there are any absolute truths.

Secular humanism declares that there isn't a God and that there isn't a soul. Without God to answer to, humanistic thinking would deny the existence of any immutable truth, or of even any fixed natural law. The idea behind this is that because of the absence of any authority to answer to, a person may do whatever they "feel" is right. This is "moral relativism."

I run into this type of thinking a lot. I see and hear and read it, nearly every day, but I don't see how one can logically argue against the absolutism of truth. If one argues against it, isn't one confirming in a way, that it actually exists?

For example, if someone says, "There is no such thing as absolute truth," then logically, the statement is contradicting itself. It would in other words, be a person saying, "It's absolutely true that there are no absolute truths." Doesn't work, does it?

You can't even say truth is relative without making a statement for absolutism. Let's play 'devil's advocate' and say that the statement, "Truth is relative," is true. That would mean that everything, including that statement, is relative. If that very statement is relative, then it isn't always true.

If "Truth is relative," isn't always a true statement, that would mean that truth is sometimes not relative. That in turn would logically mean that there are absolutes, which would mean that "Truth is relative," is a false statement. The notion is self-contradictory.

On the radio once, I caught the tail end of a broadcast about a Christian educator who would go to mainstream American college classrooms and forums and speak to students about truth. At some point during his conversations, he would pose the question, "Was Adolf Hitler an evil man?"

When somebody asks a question like, "Who is the most evil guy you can think of?", Hitler is one of the men who almost always comes to my mind, if not the first man. The idea that most of these college students were unable to commit to a "Yes," answer to the question of whether or not Hitler was evil, led to discussions about moral relativity and whether or not it was an acceptable philosophy for forward thinking persons in the world today.

I didn't get to hear whether or not the speaker was able to change minds about the existence of absolute truth, but I suspect he made some of these students think. It's a good thing too, because I know there are professors in colleges 'out there,' who are telling their students that no one has an opinion which is superior to anyone else's, and that we all have our own truths. I wonder what the grading curve is like in those classes. Must be huge, everybody having their own truth.

As a Christian, if somebody tells you there is no right or wrong in a moral situation, you have to ask, is such a statement right or wrong? For me, absolute truth is not only logical, but as a believing Christian, it's a reality provided by the Holy Spirit, and philosophically, it's an absolute necessity.

I'm no philosopher, but I think you need to be able to get through the chinks in the armor of morally relativistic philosophy these days in order to speak intelligently to some people who disagree with you, and who find Christianity a bit threatening to the way they think.

I think underneath all of the, "My right is your wrong, and that's okay," type of thinking is a person who really does know that there is absolute truth, because they stop thinking, "It's all good," when somebody burns their house down or tries to mug them. They aren't going to applaud the arsonist or thief for doing a good job and say, "They had a perfect right to do this!" It's instead, at this point, that the offended citizen will expect their "unalienable rights" to be upheld and justice to be administered.

So now I will ask a question. How can one have unalienable rights, or justice, without absolute truth? The answer is, one can't.

6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me." John 14:6

I probably can't come up with an absolute truth that upsets more people than that one. Is it because Jesus is saying that His truth is superior to a "truth" that says one doesn't need Him for salvation? Absolutely.

"6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6

"12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12,13