Journey to Absolute Truth © Domenic Savio Marbaniang, 1998.

Originally written in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Theology, at Central India Theological Seminary, Itarsi, India.

Subject: Apologetics, Philosophy, Epistemology, World-Views.

2

CONTENTS
Introduction Part A: What is Truth? 1. Defining Truth 2. The Quest for Truth and the Modern Unrest 3. Can Truth Be Known? 4. God and Truth 5. Necessary Assumptions 6. Defining Methods of Verification Part B: The Journey 1. Path – Agnosticism 2. Path – Atheism 3. Path – Evolutionism 4. Path – Pantheism 5. Path – Theism Conclusion Bibliography

Introduction

T

his book is a probe into the five major philosophical and religious systems of the world that claim to possess the truth.

The saying, “All roads lead to Rome,” implying that “All religious and philosophical systems lead to one goal” no longer stands valid today. With the popping up of many varied religious, philosophical systems, and the ways of thinking, I believe, there is a real call of urgency for the lovers of truth to seek the truth and adhere to it. “But how can truth be known?” “Can we find out or decide the truth about ourselves and the universe?” “What is the truth?”… Such are the questions which this book attempts to deal with. The book is neither an invention of a new solution nor the postulation of a new theory as the truth; rather, it is a research work with the purpose of evaluating the already existing ideologies, theories, philosophies, and religious systems of the world that claim to possess the true answer to the most basic question of life. The first section has been devoted to the establishment of the authenticity of the knowability of truth, its criteria, and need. The second part is a probe into the major philosophical and religious systems of the world. Owing to the brevity of space and the subject matter at hand, only five major religious and philosophical systems have been selected for the purpose of verification. The system that passes all the acceptable truth tests as would be mentioned in the first section will be highlighted as the truth adherable.

It must of necessity be noted that the book has, in no means, been meant to be an exhaustive explanation of each particular belief system; rather, a verification of the ground and consequences of each system, the purpose being clear: the establishment of the system that passes all acceptable truth tests as the truth.

2

PART A WHAT IS TRUTH?

I Defining truth

T

he irony of defining truth is that while in practice we all instinctively recognize it when we see it, we nevertheless ask the question if it exists, theoretically. Professor Dallas Willard, who teaches philosophy at the University of Southern California, asks this of our sensitivity to and to and estrangement from the truth. What would you think if you asked your tenyear-old, “Susie, is it true that you ate the cookies at the counter?” and she placidly replied, “Mother, what is truth?” Thankfully, Susie may not have gained that philosophical sophistication.1

Definitions of truth can be classified into two; namely, A. Absolute truth B. Relative truth A. Absolute truth – Absolute truth is objective, “what is,” regardless of what we think, feel, or believe. The fact exists even though the perceiver doesn’t exist. It is “the truth” being permanent, consistent, and unchanging – being external to the mind. It is not “what we perceive to be.” It is “what is,” the actual fact.

1

Ravi Zacharias, “The Inextinguishable Light,” Just Thinking, Oct. 97, RZIM, Chennai.

Journey to Absolute Truth
Very simply stated, truth is the judgment expressed when we use the word “is.” The verb “is” asserts something about reality to which the statement conforms. In other words, the statement “This is so,” expresses a state of existence that is real, and not dependent on belief in it in order to make it true. The reality of being represented is objective, universal, and transcendent. This is precisely the logic by which we either make statements about reality or make denials about what is not real. “The logic of truth is the same for all exclusionary claims to truth (Mortimer Adler, truth in Religion, p. 16).”2

It is very important to distinguish between “beliefs” and “truth,” when speaking in categories of absolute truth. It is a fact beyond dispute that often what is believed to be an unchallenged truth in one generation is ridiculed as a myth and folly in another generation. The term “unchallenged truth” used above actually refers to that prevailing belief held as absolute truth at that time. For example, the statement, “The earth is flat,” would have been accepted as “unchallenged truth” a few centuries ago, being the prevalent concept and belief of the time, but derisively rejected today as the greatest fallacy.
In one sense, this characteristic of truth (that truth is objective) is self-evident. For example, regardless of whatever I may believe or feel about my bank balance, the truth of the matter is recorded in my pass book and is independent of my belief or feeling. Sincerity of belief (or absence of it) does not contribute to the truth (or otherwise) of the basis of the belief. One has to necessarily investigate whether a belief-system has an adequate basis just as I have to verify my pass book to ensure that my belief about my financial solvency is
2

Ibid

3

Defining Truth
justified. Therefore one should never confuse the reality of truth with one’s belief (or unbelief) about it. Truth and belief can logically be related in only one way – truth provides the justifiability on which one bases one’s belief.3

Thus, absolute truth is objective, exclusive, universal, transcendent, and immutable. B. Relative Truth – Relative truth is just the opposite of absolute truth. Relative truth means truth as related to the knower. It is not “what is”; it is “what is to me.” And owing to its nature, it is variable, changing, unfirm and unconstant with each person.
Another real breeding-ground of all this doubt and questioning and uncertainty, and indeed of the assertions made with so much confidence, is to be found in the general spiritual climate of our age. It has arisen out of a whole range of scientific discoveries made since the nineteenth century, demanding the overhaul of our time-honored ways of life and thought and belief and setting a heavy question-mark against them. The whole thing can be summed up in the single word “Relativism”: that is, the basis is taken away from all absolutes and matters of certainty; everything is “comparative” (relative) and we can live only in a perpetual state of uncertainty, of inquiry and experiment. There is in fact but one “absolute”, which is that nothing absolute exists.4

3

L. T. Jayachandran, “Jesus the truth”, Just Thinking, RZIM, Chennai. 4 Hendrik Kraemer, Why Christianity of All Religions” (Lucknow Publishing House, 1966), pp. 37-38.

4

Journey to Absolute Truth Thus, relative truth as being a perfect contradiction of absolute truth is subjective and mutable; and so is not truth at all – it is “seemingness” or “what seems to me” and as such is varying with each person, place and thing. Conclusion From the above definition of the two kinds of truth it is clear and evident that truth to be truth must be absolute and nothing else. To call relative truth as “the truth for all at all time” is self-contradictory.

5

II The Quest for Truth and the Modern Unrest

T

he quality of human is to acquire knowledge and act according to it. From the very beginning of his life on this earth, a baby learns to learn, starts acquiring knowledge: that’s how there is a personality development, an understanding of self and the surroundings, peoples, places, locations, etc, and his relation to them. As the days progress, they give rise to important, meaningful questions in his life-questions like “Who am I?” “Why am I here?” “Why do I look like this?” etc. There is an increased zeal for knowledge – true answers. The first time he has faced one of the greatest questions of human life – the question of life, its meaning, and death. He needs an explanation. The question deepens. Other questions arise unexpectedly as he views things around and begins thinking. His reason tells him to go ask his elders; and the answers he receives from there would determine his life. The elders too had the same questions when they were young, and so did every living man who came to this earth. Some answers were ages long, untraceable, from

Journey to Absolute Truth unknown; some arose somewhere due to some revolution, some new enlightenment of truth, as supposed or believed; some from modern advancement of scientific knowledge. Children are simple and believe too easily. The depth of this belief quells these basic questions and wonderings to a lull… until, unless, he begins to reason from experience. As we have already noted before, there is a world of difference between beliefs and truth. The concept of knowledge itself implies the existence of truth. Beliefs are challenged when reason and experiences come to play together. By reason, let me mean “the capacity for rational thought, inference, or discrimination;”5 by experience, my knowledge of the world and conditions through experience. Reason and experience must play an important role in the making of decisions. It may even be well understood that reason and experience must play an important role in the development and direction of emotions. The strength and rise of emotion is often dependent on the kind of knowledge, or say, belief one holds and one’s reasoning from that stance. So then, it follows that right emotions, or reasonable emotions arise from reasonable and true beliefs – otherwise, why should the Nazis have hated the Jews? Thus, it follows that beliefs that do not tantamount to truth have disastrous consequences. Reason and
5

The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd edn.

7

Quest for Truth and the Modern Unrest experience must play an important role in deciding the truth of a belief or belief-system. The modern society, especially Indian, is largely pluralistic. We have been juxtaposed with various religions, belief-systems, and ways of thinking, and are asked to be tolerant to each other. Many do not. When an Eastern philosopher vented that it’s all a matter of brotherhood, Ravi Zacharias retorted “… but why do I see more hoods than brothers.” It is very difficult to live a pluralistic life or a life of tolerance when we come to matters of belief and thinking – for as we have seen, they have consequences. The religious man would say – and there is a plurality of religions – that his is the truth; the philosopher, that he understands it better. The politician would say that he sees it the right way, and the psychologist, that he sees it better. Who is true? Where is the truth? What is the truth? One goes to the school and immediately finds oneself in a greater pluralistic context. The school adamantly teaches that one should be obedient to parents and respect teachers. It wouldn’t begin the classes without the morning assembly and prayer to God. On the other hand, it also teaches that man came from monkey; and God disappears from the realm of science, politics, economics… The modern man is in confusion. He behaves relatively and gives in, in most parts, to circumstances. The bombardment of our culture by Western influences, and the remix of thoughts and beliefs has put the modern youth in unrest and confusion. The lie of the advertisement deceives him, and he is incapable of 8

Journey to Absolute Truth understanding the truth. What is needed is an active quest for truth, not passivity, a criterion for truth; not tolerance – it is almost impossible.
As valuable a commodity as it is and as indispensable as it is to meaningful existence, truth is possibly the most violated concept in our world…. society at large does not believe in the existence of absolute truth… truth as a category has been jettisoned even among conservatives. The most disconcerting aspect of this attitude toward truth is that anyone who holds to the possibility of truth is categorized as one who merely “believes” that such is a reality. The implication is that because truth does not exist, what is held to be true is only a belief and is therefore not a rationally admissible fact. At the same time, those who dismiss truth can end up believing anything at all, and any belief that is contemptuous of truth is considered plausible for that reason alone. This is the raw nerve of postmodern existence, and unless we establish the possibility and the necessity of truth, and of how one arrives at the truth, any belief system can be mocked at will, or offhandedly dismissed as culture.6

Note: This attitude, largely prevalent in Western civilization, no doubt is beginning to find its place in our society.

6

Ravi Zacharias, “The Inextinguishable Light,” Just Thinking, July 1997, RZIM.

9

Can Truth Be Known?

III Can Truth Be Known?

T
true.

he possibility of knowledge is dependent on the existence of Truth. If truth doesn’t exist as an absolute category there can be no “knowing” for “knowledge” implies being

But the question is “If truth exists can it be known?” I answer, Yes, substantially, though not exhaustively. For if I say that truth cannot be known, I am, in another way saying that I know something of truth that it cannot be known and this is true. This is an evident self-contradiction. If I said that truth did not exist, it would still be an absolute contradiction: for if truth did not exist, how do I know that the statement “Truth does not exist” is true? Therefore, truth can be known. Yes, I said that though we may not claim to know it exhaustively, we can know it substantially. That is, the knowledge we possess would not be in contradiction to the truth (or already existing facts). The reason I said we may not, at present, know truth exhaustively is because of the limits of our reason and understanding. Take, for example, the question “Why?” It is impossible to answer this question exhaustively, because it has the potential to stretch to infinity – i.e., each answering of the question raises another question “Why”, until we arrive at a point where we think we are at an impasse. This is because of the finitude of our minds. But just because a question cannot be answered exhaustively doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t ask it. It

Journey to Absolute Truth
would be as absurd as saying that since gold cannot be had exhaustively we should not dig for it. Who Can Know the Truth?

1. Lovers of the Truth:
Intent, in the pursuit of truth, is prior to content, or to the availability of it. Arthur George MacDonald once said, “To give truth to him who loves it not is only to give him more plentiful reasons for misinterpretation.” There must be the love of truth and the willingness to submit to its demands.7

Only those who love the truth can, when they find it, delight in it. Those who do not want to know the truth, shuddering at its consequences or proud enough to search into it, cannot stand the revelation of the truth. 2. Non-skeptics: A Skeptic can never know anything for sure because it is his nature to doubt everything. And since he doubts everything he can know no truth; for even though he encounters it he would still doubt it. 3. Considerate: It means not just reading and listening but also weighing the information. How Do We Know the Truth? 1. Reason and Experience It is the experience of self, of the world through the senses; experiencing conditions etc. Reason based on
7

Ravi Zacharias, “The Inextinguishable Light”, JT, Oct. 97.

11

God and Truth experience is used in evaluating and understanding the world; pragmatism, to prove it is workable. 2. Revelation This is the belief in the revelation of truth in the Scriptures. Different religions have their own scriptures. Revelation to be truth must correspond to truth. Any revelation that is not open to reason (or experience) cannot be established as truth.

12

IV God and Truth

B

y “God”, I mean the God of Judeo-Christian perspective; eternal, infinite, immutable, absolute; the creator, ruler, and sustainer of the universe.

Truth can exist only if there is an objective standard by which to measure it. An absolute is basically an unchanging point of reference by which all other changes are measure. Each discipline brings with it a handful of certainties by which others are developed. These certainties, if assumed, must be previously demonstrated when used as absolutes. For the Christian, the starting point is God. He is the eternally existent one, the absolute, from whom we draw all definitions for life’s purpose and destiny. This God does not expect us to come to Him in a vacuum. He has so framed this world and sour minds that the laws of reason and logic that we use lead us to the certainty of His being, and assure us that we may know Him who is the source of all truth.8

Truth to be truth must be an absolute category. We, as humans, can never come to know truth with our unaided reason alone. Many facts in the universe are evidently
8

Ravi Zacharias, “The Inextinguishable Light”, JT, Oct 97.

God and Truth seen; many others are unknown. The facts that cannot be known by surface viewing need a deeper probe. But there also comes a point in the process of investigation where human efforts have to stop and give way either to divine revelation or to a self-satisfactory, self-justifying explanation. Let me illustrate:
(A) Stage 1: Water satisfies thirst. Axiomatic Question 1: Why? Stage 2: Because of the manner and nature of our body composition, and so on. Investigation Question 2: Why? Stage 3: (a) Because we are created so. Revelation (b) Because of our adaptation to the nature of this planet and nature’s at random developing of our bodies. Reason, Speculation… Question 3: Why? To both Stage 4: (a) The Bible says so and I believe it. Faith in Revelation (b) Mere chance – can’t know: purposelessness. End of Reason (B) Stage 1: 2+2+2=6. Axiomatic Problem 1: If 2+x+2=6, then x=? Stage 2: x=6-(2+2) Investigation Problem 2: If 2+x+y=6, then x=?, y=? Stage 3: 6-2=4 Either x=2 and y=2 Or x=3 and y=1, or vice versa Reason, Speculation Problem 3: If 2+x+y=z, then x=?, y=?, z=? Stage 4: (a) Give me a clue! – plea for Revelation (b) Give up! No way to know. End of Reason

14

Journey to Absolute Truth The problem could have been easily solved by going back to the teacher and confessing that one couldn’t come to a specific answer. The teacher would give the answer. Thus, it should be evident by now that man cannot find meaning in life by depending on unaided reason alone. God being the source of truth (“All truth is God’s truth”) reveals the truth to those who desire it. If God doesn’t exist, there must be something else to replace this place as the source of all truth, or else, truth would be impossible (Let me clarify that I have in my mind, at this moment, Problem 3 and Stage 4). But that something else, being impersonal (thing), wouldn’t be able to reveal, and we would still be ignorant – and truth would be impossible. Reason would have to stop at level 4 and end up in total nihilism (How then can one be sure of the authenticity of one’s own reason or senses?). If you cannot be sure of knowledge at Stage 3, what is the meaning of knowledge at Stage 2 (Here I have not simple mathematical propositions but real life issues in mind, questions about life and its purpose; death, its meaning and reality, etc). This, though it doesn’t prove the existence of God, stresses the need and necessity of His existence for the existence of truth.

15

V Necessary Assumptions
A. Absolutes do exist

F

or, if absolutes do not exist, truth cannot exist as an absolute category. Mathematical axioms, scientific laws or discoveries of medicines, morals, etc cannot be rejected as relative and subjective propositions. They are axiomatic, universal, and absolute. B. Some views are true and others are false
There are only three possible basic approaches to truth: (i) All claims to truth are false. This is a very popular view held by atheists and relativists. However, this approach self destructs because this approach would also be false. (ii) All claims to truth are equally valid. This is the common pantheistic position. However this approach cannot be valid because it will have to include view (i) as true which is impossible. (iii) The only alternative that remains is that some views are true and others are false. The moment we make a comparison between two claims to truth, we are

Journey to Absolute Truth
(consciously or unconsciously) positing an absolute standard to which other truer claims correspond more closely.9

C. A belief-system cannot be the truth just because it contains some truth. To be the truth, everything it posits must be true. D. The quest for truth must engage our complete being (Reason+Relationship). It is not just the intellect but also experience, volition, and affections.
Truth is often confined to the world of ideas. Now ideas have a way of titillating the intellect because the mind is designed to revel in speculative imagination. Much of the progress in science and philosophy has come about by the creative interplay of ideas and hypotheses. But when one deals with questions of ultimate truth to which the human race is expected to respond, it will have to be conceded that additional dimensions beside the purely cerebral have to be allowed for. The mind that we possess is just one part of our total personality. The search for truth needs to engage every part of our being and that which satiates the longing of the human soul has to be necessarily comprehensive and multidimensional. The veracity of this statement is not far to seek. From the moment of entry into this space-time world, our understanding stands defined not mentally alone but by relationships - with ourselves, with others and with the world around us.10

9

10

L.T. Jeyachandran, “Jesus as Truth”, Just Thinking, RZIM Ibid.

17

VI Defining Methods of Verification

T

he first basic requirement for a belief in order to be tested is that it should be open to verification; for if it is not, there is no way of establishing its truthfulness. We simply can’t begin or proceed. A. Historical 1. Origins. The origins and source of the philosophical or belief-system is to be traced, the reason and setting of its origins examined, and its significance at that particular time noted. 2. Development. With advance in scientific knowledge, or compromise with other ideologies, or rise of questions, sometimes philosophical and belief systems develop or change. The stability or susceptibility to change or the system is to be noted. 3. Conflicts. Conflicts, if any, within the system are to be examined; the cause of the conflict, their consequences and implications understood. B. Philosophical 1. Internal Consistency. “All proof must begin with certain assumptions. This is true in science, philosophy or religion. Some ideas or facts must be accepted as postulates – that is, must be taken for granted. These fundamental laws of thought or logic, such as the principles of identity (“all A=A”), non-

Journey to Absolute Truth contradiction (“not both A and not-A”), and excluded middle (“either A or not-A”); these are commonly spoken of the self-evidence.”11 Let me emphasize two of the fundamental laws of logic: (a) The Law of Non-Contradiction. “This law affirms that no two contradictory statements can be both true and false at the same time, in the same sense. To deny the law of noncontradiction is only to affirm it, for to say that the law of non-contradiction is not true is to assume that the denial is true and the law is not. But that is precisely what the law says – that the contradictory statements cannot both be true. There is no way to get around this.”12 To test the truth of a belief or philosophical proposition we would ask the questions, “Is it self-contradictory?” “Does it violate itself?” “Is it internally consistent?” (b) The Law of Rational Inference. “By that we mean that inference can be made from what is known to what is unknown. No one could prove any point without the law of Rational Inference. There are conclusions that may be legitimately drawn when statements are true and the argument containing the statement is valid.”13

11

Titus, Smith, and Nolan, Living Issues in Philosophy, 8th edn. (Wadsworth, Inc, 1986), p.242 12 Ravi Zacharias, “The Inextinguishable Light” 13 Colin Chapman, The Case for Christianity (1981), p.11

19

Methods of Verification Ask the questions, “Is the argument valid?” “Are the premises true?” This decides the internal consistency of the proposition. 2. The Test of Correspondence, i.e. Correspondence with reality. Does it correspond with what we know of the real world? 3. The Pragmatic Test, i.e. Does this proposition fit the fact of our experiences better than any other proposition? Does it really work in practice?
Because the theories supplement other than directly contradict each other, they can be combined in a definition of truth: Truth is the faithful adherence of our judgments and ideas to the facts of experience or to the world as it is; but because we cannot always compare our judgments with the actual situations, we test them by their consistency with outer judgments that we believe are valid and true, or we test them by their usefulness and practical consequences.14

C. Scientific 1. Coherence with Undeniable Scientific Postulates, Laws, and Theories. If the belief or philosophy contradicts scientific truth, it is scientifically disproven, is false. All the above tests are not intended to function solitarily but complementarily or supportively like the spokes of a wheel. In the following pages, when the different truth claims will be investigated, they will be

14

Ibid

20

Journey to Absolute Truth verified by the above truth tests according to the nature of the claims. 2. Experiment Test. “Just as the scientist must conduct the necessary experiments to test all the possible theories, and to eliminate false theories… so, in the same way, we can test these rival beliefs by the rest of fact; i.e. by observing what happens when one lives consistently on the basis of one or other of these beliefs.”15
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.16

15 16

Titus, Smith, and Nolan, Living Issues. Matthew 7:15-20 (RSV).

21

PART B THE JOURNEY

I Agnosticism

A

gnosticism – (From Greek agnostos, unknown, anot + gnostos, known)

Definition: 1. (Philosophy) The doctrines of the agnostics, holding that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. (Theology) A theory that does not deny God but denies the possibility of knowing Him.17
The agnostic says, “We don’t know if God exists, and we can’t possibly know to certain. No matter how hard we try to find the truth through reason or the heart, we cannot hope to find it. Our minds are finite, and we cannot solve the mysteries of the universe. We must be content to recognize the limits of the knowledge and not hope to know anything beyond these limits.18

17 18

The American Heritage Dictionary Colin Chapman, op.cit, p.192

Agnosticism Historical Enquiry: Philosophical and Scientific Tests The Theory It was Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95), a British naturalist and agnostic, who introduced the word agnostic in 1869. It literally means no knowledge. Though the word at the beginning implied the form, “I don’t know”, it later ended up in the form, “I cannot know.” This ideology and attitude has its roots mainly in the philosophies of Hume and Kant. David Hume, the Scottish philosopher and historian (1711-76), who could well be described as the father of modern skepticism, questioned not only traditional Christian beliefs (for example, miracles) but also basic assumptions which most of us take for granted (for example, the principle of cause and effect).19 He maintained that we cannot hope to know anything beyond what our senses tell us, and argued that it was not reason but custom which is the guide of life. Immanuel Kant, a German professor of philosophy (17241804), made a distinction between ways of knowing: knowledge has to do with phenomenon (everything that can be seen) and faith has to do with noumena (truths beyond space and time). The noumena is reality as it is; the phenomenon, reality as perceived by the senses. Thus built up the atmosphere of uncertainty, ignorance and, later, an attitude of abandoning the search for truth with the prevalence of ideas such as “Absolute truth cannot be known”, “God cannot be known”, “The mysteries of the universe cannot be solved”. Agnosticism, historically speaking, is an attitude gradually developed
19

Ibid, p.164

24

Journey to Absolute Truth due to instability of knowledge (actually beliefs) and variances and conflicts between philosophers in the field of epistemology (How do we know? How do we know that our knowledge is valid? Etc). Its Consequences The attitude of agnosticism has had and can still further have devastating influence in the lives of people.20 1. It leads to a frightening world in which there are no certainties. Novelists, playwrights and artists are more helpful than philosophers in enabling us to see where agnosticism leads. They depict the world of uncertainties, convey the feeling of absurdity and meaninglessness of life, and confusion prevails with the inability to discriminate the real from the illusionary. 2. Professional philosophers abandon their search for truth. Traditional philosophy has always been concerned with the pursuit of the truth. Now, however, philosophers generally have abandoned the search for truth in the older sense, and have been freed to limit the field of their enquiries to, for example, the study of concepts and the study of the meaning of words. The real aim and purpose of philosophy is lost and the philosopher has become jobless. A clerk who loses his faith abandons his calling; a philosopher who loses his, redefines his subject (Ernest Gellner). 3. It affects the way we think about science. In the early period of modern science, it was confidently
20

The following have been adopted from Colin Chapman’s The Case for Christianity (Lion Publishing, 1982), pp.193-195

25

Agnosticism believed that the scientist was involved in the pursuit of “the truth” about the universe. By observation and experiment, he believed that he would eventually be able to formulate reliable theories about how the universe works. But with the removal of the base by the introduction of uncertainty, scientific truths have become merely relative It is evident that agnosticism is a claim of final postulate by which it raises itself above science by undermining its purpose and function. The postulate: “Truth, in itself, is unknowable.” Thus, it seems to be shielded against the attack of science. Its policy and strategy is equal to this “Disarmour your enemy and he wouldn’t attack you.”

Internal Consistency Postulate:21 Truth, in the unknowable sense, is unknowable. Refutation: (1) If truth is unknowable, how does one know that the postulate “Truth is unknowable” is true? It is self-defeating, self-contradictory. (2) By claiming “Truth is unknowable” the agnostic implies that he knows something about the truth – that it is unknowable. How then can he say that it is unknowable? (3) The agnostic conclusion is based on the assumptions of Kant that reality, as it is, is
21

The postulates are postulates of the latter form of agnosticism. The former one just states, “I don’t know” which is not at all problematic.

26

Journey to Absolute Truth unperceivable. The statement is impossible for by stating that reality is unperceivable, one implies the claim to know the difference between reality and the sense perceptions, which is impossible unless one knows what reality is. Postulate: God is unknowable. Refutation: The proposition is self-contradictory for by stating “God is unknowable” the agnostic implies that he knows who God is (for how can one say something about someone without knowing about him) and with the same breath denies any possible knowledge of Him. Postulate: Whether God exists or not is unknowable. Refutation: This is a fallacious statement. The agnostic posits an absolute negation by saying that God’s existence is unknowable, which is impossible without a possession of infinite, universal, transcendent knowledge. But here the case is different. The basis of agnosticism is the idea that absolute knowledge is impossible because our minds are finite. Thus, it is self-contradiction.

Conclusion Agnosticism is self-contradictory and self-defeating logically, confusing rationally, and has devastating influence in both psychological and practical areas of life. “Truth cannot be known, exactly” is its tenet; therefore, it cannot lead to truth. And, if it cannot lead to truth, it cannot be true; for only true ways lead to true destination.

27

II Atheism
Definition

T

his word is derived from the Greek atheos, which means godless. It can be segmented as a-without and theos-god. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Atheism has many variant forms (e.g. Jainism, Humanism, Marxism, Existentialism, etc), but its basic tenet is the denial of the existence of God. Its Consequences 1. With the non-existence of God, the concept of truth as an absolute category vanishes. Truth becomes relative, with the absence of an absolute standard to determine its immutability. So then, what seems appropriate and satisfactory to a person is what matters. 2. With the non-existence of God, the concept of absolute moral values becomes non-existent. This is clearly seen in the writings of many atheistic philosophers. Moral values become relative and universally invalid. There is no one to whom you should be obligatorily responsible but to the

Journey to Absolute Truth Government or law of your locality (e.g. The Nazi Law, etc). Justice as a universal requirement is absurd. 3. There is no solution to the question of life after death. There is no life after death.22 And when faced with the reality of death, the atheist meets deep psychological disturbances (especially when he had been in close relationship with the deceased one). There is no answer; only memories linger. 4. There is no hope for the future. The world is heading for decay. Struggle for existence will continue and perhaps end up in painful extinction. 5. Life becomes meaningless. Questions like “Who am I?” “Where have I come from?” “Why am I here?” “Where am I going?” are left unanswered. There are only speculations and relative answers. If life is painful and death an annihilation, what is the meaning of life? “It is all vanity, a chasing after the wind.” The consequences of atheism are devastating; no God, then no morals, no justice, no answers. Internal Consistency Postulate: There is no God or God does not exist. Refutation: (1) We know things exist by observation and experimentation. How does one know that God does not exist? Secondly, just because a Supreme Being has not been perceived by observation doesn’t prove His non-existence. It would perhaps
22

Exceptions: atheistic religions like Jainism.

29

Agnosticism be less fallacious to suppose that the stars did not exist during the day just because one didn’t see them during the day. (2) By saying that God doesn’t exist, the atheist posits an absolute negation. One can’t do that unless one possesses infinite and universal knowledge, which is impossible when knowledge itself is being assumed. Argument: (1) God, being God, can never allow evil. (2) There is evidently much evil in the world. (3) Therefore, God doesn’t exist. Contra Argument: (1) God, being God, must be good. (2) There is evidently much good in the world. (3) Therefore, God exists.

Conclusion Atheism is logically fallacious, existentially meaningless, psychologically disturbing, and consequentially detrimental. Therefore, atheism is invalid and untrue.

30

III Evolutionism
Definition: Evolution means orderly development.

W

hen we speak of the theory of evolution in a more general sense… we are thinking of the biological theory which, it is claimed, accounts for the development of all living things from the amoeba to man.”23

The theory of organic evolution involves three main ideas:24 (1) Living things change from generation to generation, producing descendents with the characteristics. (2) This process has been going on so long that it has produced all the groups and kinds of things now living, as well as others that lived long ago and have now become extinct. (3) These different living things are related to each other, and so are the families or larger groups of which these various living animals or plants are members.

23 24

Colin Chapman, op. cit, pp. 128,129 The World Book Encyclopedia, 1980.

Evolutionism The Evidence of Evolution The chief bases on which the whole theory of evolution now rests are: (1) Variation and Change. Variation and change is seen in all living things. Some are called acquired characteristics, and are caused by outside conditions – the environment, climate, food kinds, etc. Theses, as we know, cannot be passed on to posterity. Some variations, however, go much further. In 1849, for example, a wild grape vine suddenly produced big sweet grapes which were named Concord. Other sports or mutations, as such variations are called, have produced hornless cattle, short-legged sheep, “double” flowers and new varieties of seed. A different sort of variation takes place when two species (kinds) cross and produce a new one. (2) Fossils. Fossils are the remains or traces of things that lived ages ago. They are preserved in rock layers called strata which lie one upon another, much like boards in a pile. An investigation of the fossil in each strata reveals variations and signs of development. (3) Embryology. The study of the development of the embryo gives evolutionists the idea of evolution of living things. For example, facts from fossils, plus other data, have shown that mammals form the last stage in a long evolutionary series of 32

Journey to Absolute Truth development. This series began with a little seadwelling creature which has gristly rod, next gets a backbone of cartilage, and then turns the cartilage into bones. While this is being done, the embryo develops gills like a fish, loses them and then builds up two lungs. At the same time, the dog’s heart develops through fish, amphibian, and reptilian stages until it becomes the four chambered organ which pumps blood so efficiently that the animal can keep warm. This shows that characteristics long lost are still inherited. This means that there is real relationship between modern and earliest forms of animals. (4) Comparative Anatomy. The bodies of plants and animals provide facts dealing with both relationships and changes when different structures of their bodies are compared. A method which explains the term comparative anatomy. (5) Geographic Distribution. Plants and animals living on far, isolated islands are studied, the variations, species noted and compared. The theory of evolution is applied to the data and thus variances are explained.

33

Evolutionism History of Evolution Modern explanation of evolution dates from 1859 when Charles Darwin, the grandson of Erasmus Darwin, published The Origin of Species. Darwin’s Theory Professor W.R. Thompson, in the Introduction to the 1965 Everyman edition of The Origin of Species, summarizes Darwin’s theory of evolution and the view of most representative modern Darwinians in this way:
Natural selection, leading to the survival of the fittest, in populations of individuals of varying characteristics and competing among themselves, has produced in the course of geological time, gradual transformations leading from the simple primitive to the highest form of life, without the intervention of any directive agency or force…. Purposeless and undirected evolution, says J.S. Huxley, eventually produced in man, a being capable of purpose and of directing evolutionary change. At the time Darwin wrote, no one knew about the nature of variations or heredity. He described such variations as Concord grape. He did not distinguish these variations from acquired characters mentioned by his grandfather and by Buffon. According to Charles Darwin, all variations belonged to one general class and might be inherited. Later studies showed that his was not true. Mutations, or sports, and many other characters are inherited but so most acquired characters are not… change produced by genes… are passed on, but those caused only by outside conditions are not.25
25

Colin Chapman, op. cit, p.129

34

Journey to Absolute Truth

Unsolved Problems of Evolution (1) The Cause of Variations. Experiments, in which genes are changed by chemicals and radiations such as X-rays, are artificial. A great deal still must be learned about the cause or causes of variations in nature, where human beings cannot interfere. (2) Guiding Forces of Evolution. Some authorities think that natural selection guides all evolution. But these authorities need much more knowledge on how selection works. (3) Missing Evolutionary Links. Many links between groups are still living. Others are known from fossils. Yet, there still are numerous gaps in the series, especially between groups that evolved very long ago. Besides these, there are hundreds of smaller problems that deal with the evolution of special groups, their relationship to their surroundings, and the length of time needed for one group or another to change.26 According to atheistic evolution, time, matter, and chance created life. There is no divine intelligence involved. Life sprang up spontaneously from simple matter due to mere chance and gradually developed, by chance, into complex organisms. Some Views against Evolutionism27 1. Dr. Edwin Conklin, biologist, Princeton University, in Reader’s Digest, January 1963: “The probability
26 27

The World Book, Vol.6, pp. 339, 334 Edward Blick, Correlation of the Bible and Science, 1976, p.14

35

Evolutionism of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” Dr. Erwin Chartaff, Columbia University, (on evolution): “Our time is probably the first in which mythology has penetrated to the molecular level.” President Leavitt of Lehigh University: “Autoplasm evolving a universe is a superstition more pitiable than paganism.” Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist, Atomic Energy Commission, U.S.: “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France. “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Herbeit Nilssen, Director of Botany Institute, Lund University, in SYNTHETISCHE Art Building, Vol. I&II, 1985 (translation). “My attempt to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than two years, has completely failed… It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that… the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, the will never be filled. The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”

2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

36

Journey to Absolute Truth The above quotes clearly indicate that these scientists consider evolutionism not a science, but a myth or mere belief. They do not consider it to be the truth. It is just a set of assumptions and speculation of events past, which are impossible to be repeated in the present. And what cannot be repeated in the present cannot be verified through experimentation, what is not experimental is not science. The evolutionist’s claim is false. Does Evolutionism Correspond with Scientific Laws and Requirements In his book, Correlation of the Bible and Science, Edward F. Blick put forth four crisis confronting evolution of present. They are: (a) The Second Law of Thermodynamics (b) Fossils gaps; (c) No known mechanism; and (d) Mounting evidence for a young earth. Let us discuss them below: (a) The Second Law of Thermodynamics, simply stated means “The universe is running down.” There is a decrease of usable energy, a greater randomness and disorderliness in the system and a procession towards delay. Evolution, on the other hand, supposes that the universe is climbing up; there is an increase in usable energy, developed and increased in order, evolution from the simple matter to the higher complex form of life. Evolution stands in direct contradiction of this basic scientific law, and therefore it cannot be approved by scientific verification.

37

Evolutionism (b) Fossil Gaps. This has already been discussed before under “Unsolved Problem of Evolution.” No.3 (c) Lack of Mechanism for Evolution. The two mechanisms for change are natural variations (which follow the Mendelian laws of heredity) and mutations. Natural variation can produce all the varieties of modern day horses from just one pair of horses. These variations have always been within well defined limits within a kind or species. Cats never change into dogs, neither rabbits into rats. Mutations are the only observable things in the environment which affect the hereditary portion of the life cell. Radiation, mustard chemical, and perhaps LSD will change the DNA or coding structures. However, the change is always an injury. The resulting organism is always weaker and unable to compete or survive, and if left to nature, will revert to its original form if it survives. Thus, we see that there is no known mechanism; for evolution is unproven and, therefore, is not a genuine science. (d) Young Earth. “Young” means any age that is less than 500 million years. Of course, this is an extremely long time but small when compared to evolutionary age estimate of five to six billion years. Edward lists eighty processes in his table, which indicates the earth is “young”. We will discuss four of them. 38

Journey to Absolute Truth

(i) Carbon 14. The decay of C-14 in Pre-Cambrian wood (according to evolutionists, about 4 billion years back) indicates the age of earth to be about 4,000 years old. (ii) The process of decay of earth’s magnetic field indicates the age of earth to be about 10,000 years. (iii) The process of the efflux of Helium-4 into the atmosphere indicates the age of earth to 1,750-1,75,000 years. (iv) Meteoritic Dust. The earth would have accumulated a layer of dust 265 ft thick, extremely rich in Nickel and Iron, from the disintegration of meteors as they burn up in the earth’s atmosphere, during five billion years. There is no apparent evidence of such a layer, which allows one to conclude the earth is far less than five billion years old. The possibility of evolution in a young earth by just a mere play of chance is only a dream, a fantasy; there can be no fact in it. Complex forms of life, artistically designed, are impossible without the function of perfect intelligence. Internal Consistency and Test of Correspondence 1. The Argument from Embryology Premise 1: Fossil records show that mammals formed the last stage in the evolutionary series of development. Premise 2: The unborn mammal, today, undergoes the same developmental process, i.e. fish to amphibians, to reptilian stage to mammal. 39

Evolutionism Conclusion: Therefore, mammals developed from lower forms of life. Verification: The conclusion is based on the suppositions that Premise 2 explains and proves Premise 1. The argument is invalid, since the two premises are irrelative. The first is a long evolutionary process; the second, a short development process of an embryo. 2. Postulate: Time, matter, and chance created the human brain. Refutation: If time, matter, and chance has created the human brain, then truth as an absolute category no longer exists. For, for truth to be true, it must be unchanging; it must be true on Sundays, true on Mondays… Tuesdays…. But with the flux and fluctuation of time, matter, and chance (for time, matter, and chance all change) truth as an absolute ceases to exist. But, if truth doesn’t exist how can it be said that the postulation “Time, matter, and chance has created the human brain” is true?28 3. Postulate: The brain is a random collocation of atoms. Refutation: If the brain is a random collocation of atoms, reason becomes unreasonable, and undependable. For, then reason would be the product “purely accidental juxtaposition of atoms and molecules and by various biochemical processes in the brain, in other words, by purely non-rational means.”29 How then can it be known for certain that the brain is a random collocation of atoms, and that this is the most reasonable theory?

28 29

Ravi Zacharias, Questions of a Man in Agony, Audio Sermon L.T. Jeyachandran, “Does God Exist”, Truth for Times, RZIM

40

Journey to Absolute Truth 4. Argument: (a) All science is truth. (b) Evolution is a science. (c) Therefore, evolution is true. Verification: (Through the test of correspondence) Both the premises (a) and (b) cannot be proved true. So, science is always changing. What was accepted a century ago as a scientific truth is today discarded as sneer ignorance. What is accepted today as a valid theory may be deemed invalid tomorrow. Evidently all science is not the truth; for truth must not change. All scientific theories must be open to falsification. If there is no way to test the theory and possibly prove it false, it is not a theory of science. It is really a philosophy or religion (Karl Popper in the Logic of Scientific Discovery). No theory about the beginning of the world or the origin of life can be tested experimentally. This is because nobody observed or can repeat what happened in the ancient past history of the earth. They are not open to falsification.30 Therefore, the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory.

Conclusion There are many more facts that refute the theory of evolution that space doesn’t allow to include here. It is really amazing that people can believe that the genetic code has originated by mere play of chance.

30

Robert E. Kopahl, Handy Dandy Evolution Refuters, (CreationScience Research Center, 1977), pp.13-16

41

Evolutionism Evolution is mythical, hypothetical (and closed to falsification), logically fallacious, and in the long run an impossible belief. Its evidences are inadequate. It is scientifically unprovable, and is, for sure, an inadequate explanation of life. It says that the brain happened by chance which is changing and asserts by the same brain that its hypothesis is unchanging and credible. Thus, it contradicts itself, it defeats itself.

42

IV Pantheism

T

he word “pantheism” is derived from the root word pan meaning “all”, theos meaning “god” and ism meaning “a doctrine or theory”.

Historical Background The idea of pantheism is evidently at its peak in Hinduism. This religion is one of the oldest and with the belief of polytheism and monism imbibes the belief of pantheism in its doctrines. There is the belief that “everything is God,” the belief that “God is to nature as soul is to body,” that “God is in everything and is everything.” Baruch Spinoza (1632-77) introduced pantheistic ideas into Western Philosophy in the seventeenth century. According to him “God is All and All is God… All that is, is in God, and nothing can be, or be conceived apart from God.”31

31

Colin Chapman, The Case for Christianity, p.203

Pantheism Recently, the belief has found its way into Christian thinking through the writings of Paul Tillich and Teilhard De Chardin. Its Consequences Most people practically are reluctant to live out this way of belief; for to believe oneself to be God in one hand and sense the limitations of self, power, and ability on the other is difficult to go with. Others tried to develop and solve it with the conception that man must realize the “Godness” in himself. This too is practically impossible. The outcome of such trials is just feelings and imaginative beliefs; man is still limited and imperfect. The doctrine is practically unreliable. Verification (1) It has misinterpreted and undermined the maning of the word “God.” It is an assault on murder of the meaning of “God.” The word “God” itself implies “greater than man,” “distinct from cosmos”, “above the cosmos”. But with the identification of the cosmos with God, the concept of “God” is annulled. (2) It is meaningless. If man is God, dog is God, cat is God, and stone is God; then, man is dog, dog is cat, cat is man; stone is cat and evil and good is the same; jam is butter, mango is banana and so on. It is meaningless and assault on perception, a denial of perception and understanding. (3) It is self-contradictory. By denying the authenticity of perception, it has no basis to postulate that its perception of the world as being God is authentic either. 44

Journey to Absolute Truth (4) It leads to nowhere. If everything is God, then “everything” and “God” are synonymous, they mean the same thing. It is like saying then, “everything is everything”, “God is God.” It doesn’t define anything. The statements lend no understanding. What would anyone understand if I were to say “Butter is bris” without explaining what “bris” is? But, say, “bris” is explained and it comes out to mean “butter”. There is no point in uttering the sentence. To say “stone is God” implies that the person listening knows the difference between stone and God. Pantheism is inconsistent, self-contradictory, and unreliable. It is a practical mistake; a practical impossibility. It is nothing in meaning and leads to nothing in reality. To understand it is to understand that you had understood it before you understood it. It is nonsensical and, therefore, not true.

45

V Theism (Monotheism)

T

heism is the doctrine that there is one God, transcendent, eternal, true, holy, and just. This God is all powerful, all-knowing, and present everywhere. He has no boundaries and no limitations. He is above the cosmos which He created. It is also a belief that this God is a person, is a loving, compassionate, forgiving, and interested in the universe (i.e. takes care of it). Historical Background Judaism is the first to be acknowledged as a monotheistic religion. This God called Abraham some 4000 years ago from the land of Ur of Chaldea. He becomes the father of the Jewish race through Isaac, his son. And thence, begins a religious people, the people of the one God. Two thousand years later, followers of Jesus Christ, called Christians, explained the doctrine of Trinity – that there are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; but, the three are one, one God. Around 400 AD, the religion Islam emerged with Mohammed as the founder. Islam rejected the doctrine of Trinity but adhered to the one God.

Journey to Absolute Truth Judaism and Islam, however, are distinct in the way how Christianity is. They are ways to reach God by works and rituals, while Christianity stresses on the grace of this personal God, who by His grace reached down to man through His Son Jesus Christ and granted forgiveness of sins. There are almost never any new converts to Judaism. The conversions to Islam have been mainly due to force and compulsion. The conversions to Christianity mainly occur after a realization of self-inadequacy, self-iniquity, and the need for forgiveness. Verification Monotheism is more reasonable than any other ism because 1. It gives a reasonable account of the origin of the universe. The universe is created by the Almighty Creator God. It is not just a mere product of chance. 2. It satisfies the psychological desires of man; for the God above him is both reliable and able to protect and deliver him. 3. It answers the basic questions of man, “Who am I?” “Why am I here?” “Where have I come from?” “Where am I going?” 4. It is logically reasonable. (a) The Ontological Arguments: That the idea of the Being, the greater than whom cannot be conceived necessitates the existence of that being because of the nature of that being. The idea of the yellow 47

Theism elephant may not necessitate its existence but the idea of a Being greater than whom cannot be conceived necessitates His existence because there can be no further conception from here. The idea of infinite Greater is impossible. Existence is one of the basic parts of perfection. To conceive of a most perfect being is to conceive him as existing or else the existing would be greater than the concept which is self-contradictory. Therefore, the greatest conceivable Being must exist. (b) The Cosmological Argument. Everything in the cosmos has a cause; the cosmos must also have a cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore, an Uncaused Cause, i.e. God exists. (c) The Teleological Argument. The design and order of the universe makes it reasonable that the cosmos is fashioned by a greater designer who is God and has not occurred by chance. Theism is reasonable, logical, and practically reliable. But still a problem exists: Can this God be known? Can man hope to live up to His just standard? Can man relate to God? The rigid laws and rituals of Judaism and Islam render man unqualified and unprepared to meet his holy, just, and true God. But, Christianity provides the answer: Jesus Christ.

1. Jesus Christ is the revelation of God. We can know God through Him. 48

Journey to Absolute Truth 2. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of the Jewish Bible. The Messiah was promised: this was Jesus. 3. Jesus is the Mediator between God and man. A sinner who is hopeless, an enemy of God, can now be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ through whom there is forgiveness of sins, hope for the future, and fellowship with God. 4. Jesus continues to help the Christian in his Christian walk, if he submits to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and walks accordingly. 5. This has been possible because Jesus, after being crucified for our sins and being buried, rose up from among the dead and is still alive today (the evidences surmount: the empty tomb, the faithfulness of His disciples even to death, many eyewitnesses, record in historical books, e.g., The Antiquities of Jews, the continuing effect in the lives of people, the testimony of many modern day servants of God who witnessed a miraculous conversion of their lives through a personal visitation of Jesus, etc., what Jesus predicted concerning Himself (Matthew 16:21) literally took place). Therefore, Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6). Christian Theism, above all, is more reliable, more reasonable, more logical and practical than any other; as a matter of fact, logic necessitates its truthfulness. The human need and desire for relationship, removal of guilt, hope for the future, and meaning for life are provided in Jesus Christ. Depending on this reasonable evidence which we understand, we can, I believe, now trust in God for the things we do not understand.

49

Theism Christianity is the truth (the true way) and it is, therefore, reliable.

50

CONCLUSION

Conclusion

T

he limitation of human reason and knowledge is a fact indisputable. The knowledge of men takes new shapes and turns through each passing era.

To postulate an absolute negation of the existence of God or the knowledge of God is contrary to this fact of the finitude of the human mind, reason and knowledge. To postulate and assert an understanding and knowledge of an historical event in the past based on inadequate evidences is equally unjust and impractical. To postulate an identity of nature with God is contradictory to the nature of understanding and perception. It is confusing and mythical. Theism, especially Christianity, with a postulate belief in the existence of a One transcendent God, the Creator and the Sustainer of the cosmos, the possibility of relationship with God, the Holy, Infinite, Almighty, Benevolent, AllPowerful, All-Knowing Perfect One, and the revelation of this God in the person of Jesus Christ, and thus hope for the future is quite reasonable, practical, and logically sound. It is sound doctrine and, therefore, the Truth. Whenever a man undertakes a journey, he knows that he, by his own reason and understanding cannot make the journey alone. He realizes the need of an external, reliable guide (revelation).

Journey to Absolute Truth The journey to Truth is impossible on false and selfinvented roads. The journey to Truth is possible only on the way ordained by the eternal Truth, the Source of all truth; because “All truth is God’s truth.” The true way is provided to us by God through the revelation of Jesus Christ who is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. He is the Way of Truth to Life. Jesus is the most reliable Guide, being the embodiment of Truth Himself. Holding the hand of this true Guide and following His footsteps, we can take the journey along the path of truth towards the Absolute Truth, the Ultimate Truth – who is God; apart from Him there is and can be no truth. He is the beginning and the end of all philosophical and religious truth. And so, He must be assumed as the originator of reason for the certainty of reason, and believed as the revealer of knowledge for the rationality, purposefulness, and the meaningfulness of existence and life. The world toils on, drags on, and gropes about trying to find a purpose, a meaning for its existence. However, this can never be achieved unless there is a realization of the existence of a transcendent and immanent God who created the world for and with an intelligent purpose. I must add here, nevertheless, that revelation alone doesn’t suffice; there must be an illumination of the truth into the human heart as well: for truth that is unconvincing and insignificant has no significant bearing on life. The veil of deception must be removed off the human mind and heart so to let the light of truth to shine in – the Truth must become undoubtedly convincing and 53

Conclusion satisfying to the human heart and mind to be believed in, relied upon, and followed with absolute adherence. But how can this be possible? Let me, here, admit without presumption and in all candor, that we can absolutely do nothing about it. Any attempt of self-imaginary and selfendeavor by means of self-invented means would be futile. There must be an encounter with the Divine for a truthful belief and reliance on the truth. And here, Christianity provides the answer: the God of Truth and Love has spoken to us through Jesus Christ in Truth and in Grace He has touched us through the active presence of the Holy Spirit. The God of Christianity is both transcendent and immanent as well. Man is no more left to the mercy of reason, natural laws, and environment; but God in His mercy has sent us His Holy Spirit of Truth to guide us and lead us into all Truth. This is a mystic encounter: the world may deem it as foolishness and irrational, but it is genuine, nevertheless. This is a supernatural, spiritual, divine encounter; and is, therefore, necessary, rational, and authenticated by the transformed lives of many. Truth can only be lived out and realized after an encounter with and submission to the Spirit of Truth sent to us by God, the Author of Truth, to lead us by embellishing and illuminating our minds and hearts with the truth which is necessary for our journey through and to the eternally Absolute Truth – G O D .

54

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Conclusion Books Blick, Edward F. Correlation of the Bible and Science (1976) Chapman, Colin. The Case for Christianity (Lion Publishing, 1981) Kopahl, Robert E. Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter (Creation-Science Research Center, 1977) Kraemer, Hendrick. Why Christianity of All Religions? (Lucknow: Lucknow Publishing House, 1966) Mc Dowell/Stewart Don. Concise Guide to Today’s Religions (Campus Crusade for Christ, 1990) The World’s Religions (Lions Publishing, 1982)

Periodicals Just Thinking, RZIM LIFE FOCUS SOCIETY, Chennai, 19951998. Back to Genesis, Institute of Creation Research, CA, 1998.

56