Truth and worldview

“I am cold” and “I am warm” can be true simultaneously because they describe different people. “Jesus rose” and “Jesus did not rise,” by contrast, contradict one another when the same event is meant in the same sense. A difference of perspective does not resolve this opposition.

A global claim such as “There is no universally valid truth” must also be applied to itself: Is it meant to be universally true? Then it contradicts its content. Is it meant merely to describe a personal preference? Then it refutes no general truth claim. Differentiated philosophical relativisms, however, must each be examined according to their actual thesis; the simple objection does not automatically address every variant.

Christians confess God's Word as truth. This permits no confusion of one's own interpretation with God's infallibility. Precisely because truth is more than our preference, we must be willing to correct our own errors.

“I like coffee” describes a taste. “There is coffee in this cup” asserts a state of affairs. Both sentences can be true or false, but have different objects. Anyone overlooking these differences easily treats religious statements as though they were mere expressions of taste.

Christianity claims more than that people feel comforted. Among other things, it claims that God created the world and Jesus rose from the dead. Paul expressly explains what consequences it would have if the resurrection had not happened (1. Corinthians 15,14–19). The truth claim therefore cannot be reduced to personal usefulness.

A statement does not, however, become true by being sincerely meant or beautifully formulated. We must understand its content and examine its reasons. Respecting people does not mean confirming all their statements without examination.

“The door is open” and “The door is closed” do not contradict one another if different doors or times are meant. They contradict if the same door is meant at the same time and in the same sense. This precision is particularly decisive in theological statements.

For example, Trinitarian doctrine does not assert “God is one person and three persons.” It distinguishes the unity of the divine being from the three persons. Anyone wishing to demonstrate a contradiction must show that this distinction fails; merely juxtaposing one and three is insufficient.

Conversely, one must not resolve a real opposition with the word “mystery.” A good examination writes out both statements understandably, clarifies their concepts and asks whether they really concern the same state of affairs. Unclear concepts call for precision rather than proving or disproving a doctrine.

“A married bachelor,” with concepts unchanged, denotes no special person God merely still needs to create. The expression combines a feature with its negation. Likewise, “A true lie in the same sense” denotes no additional ability God would lack.

The Bible says God does not lie or deny himself (Titus 1,2; 2. Timothy 2,13). These statements describe his perfection. A God whose promises could be equally true and false would be no reliable object of trust.

Whether the relationship of logic and God's being can be determined more precisely philosophically is a further question. The biblical statement, however, suffices to reject a widespread fallacy: The impossibility of a contradiction is no weakness in God. Anyone arguing that God could suspend logic additionally uses logical inferences whose binding force he is calling into question.

We can know a fact without grasping its entire context. A child can know it is alive without being able to explain life's biology. Lack of complete understanding is therefore not the same as an internally incompatible claim.

In the Bible, “mystery” also frequently denotes something God has revealed that was previously hidden. Ephesians 3,3–6 names specific content: People from the nations are fellow heirs in Christ and belong to the same body. Mystery here is no permission to assert arbitrary opposites.

With a difficult doctrine, we should therefore ask: What is actually being said? Which parts do we understand? Where does our explanation end? And where is a contradiction supposed to lie? This avoids both premature rejection and flight into vague words. Referring to God's greatness does not release us from careful thinking.

Tolerance often precisely presupposes a difference. I can consider a conviction false while respecting the other's right to hold it. If tolerance is instead meant to mean that all convictions are equally true, a rule of conduct becomes a disputed theory of truth.

Every serious position excludes contradictory positions. The statement “No religion may make an exclusive truth claim” also opposes religions that do precisely that. This does not already refute it, but it must justify why its own excluding claim should be permissible.

Jesus claims to be the way to the Father. Christians should neither conceal this claim nor confuse it with personal superiority. Anyone living by grace himself has no reason to despise others. The appropriate path is clear witness, fair justification and renunciation of coercion.

Love and truth belong together. When two religions make contradictory statements about Jesus, denying the difference is no kindness. Reading the respective texts closely and explaining understandably where the opposition lies is more helpful.

Criticism, however, must address the position actually held. A quotation torn from context or a particularly extreme fringe group is no replacement for engaging with a doctrine. Nor does one error automatically imply that every statement a person makes is false.

Christians examine from God's revelation and disclose this starting point. At the same time, a position can be measured against its own presuppositions: Does it meet the standard it applies to others? This is a substantive question in return. A mere “You do it too,” by contrast, refutes no objection.

An explanation of why someone finds a conviction attractive is not yet a refutation of its content. A person can wish a friend is healthy, and that friend can actually be healthy. What remains decisive is whether the asserted thing is true.

The projection objection can be legitimate as a question of motives: Do we adopt an idea only because it is pleasant to us? This examination, however, also applies to wishing for a world without divine accountability. Neither possible motive decides the truth question.

The biblical conception of God, moreover, is not simply an extension of every human wish. It confronts us with guilt, judgment and a claim that corrects our lives. This alone does not yet prove faith, but shows the weakness of an overly simple wish theory. We must engage with God's self-revelation and the specific statements about Christ.

“Only nature exists” sounds simple. But this does not yet clarify what nature is, why it exists and how knowledge, consciousness and binding moral claims should be understood. Likewise, “God explains everything” would be insufficient if no specific connection between faith and the respective question were shown.

Moreover, atheism and naturalism are not identical. Atheism concerns belief in God; a comprehensive worldview contains additional assertions. Anyone merely declaring he lacks belief in God has not thereby presented a positive theory of all reality. One need not foist one upon him either.

CHRISTOlogisch starts with the God who reveals himself in Scripture. Examination of an objection then asks whether its presuppositions and implications hold. Simplicity can play a role in comparing explanations, but replaces neither truth nor justification. A worldview must not solve important questions merely by renaming them.

Some atheists expressly claim there is no God. Others use atheism merely to mean the absence of belief in God. An agnostic can say he does not know whether God exists, or claim more strongly that no one can know it. These positions are not the same.

The burden of justification depends on the particular assertion. Anyone affirming God's existence should explain why. Anyone denying it should state the reasons for his denial. Anyone claiming global unknowability needs more than reference to his own uncertainty.

A good conversation therefore begins with the actual claim rather than a label. Christians confess that God has revealed himself knowably. A conversation partner can raise specific objections to this. A mere self-description as unconvinced is no refutation yet, but can be an honest invitation to present the reasons more understandably.

A deduction shows what necessarily follows from particular premises. A historical comparison of explanations investigates which explanation best makes sources and events understandable. A measurement, in turn, answers a limited empirical question. These procedures must not be confused with one another.

A formally valid argument is also a sound proof of truth only if its premises are true. Conversely, historical evidence does not become worthless because it provides no mathematical certainty. Its actual strength must be examined against the specific question.

The biblical God is no object within the world to be isolated like a chemical substance. This does not mean every question about reasons is impermissible. It means the demand for a particular demonstration must be justified. Christians explain their starting point in God's self-revelation and examine objections instead of making God's authority dependent on an allegedly higher neutral judge.

Christians confess Jesus as the risen Lord. A position denying his bodily resurrection cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense as this claim. Shared ethical concerns do not remove this substantive opposition.

The image of different paths up the same mountain also presupposes that all paths actually reach the same goal. But that is precisely the disputed claim. Anyone claiming this overview must justify where he gets it from. The mere diversity of religious convictions shows neither that all are true nor that all are false.

John 14,6 and Acts 4,12 expressly connect access to God with Jesus Christ. Christians therefore advocate no self-redemption through superior religiosity. They point to the one Savior and his grace. Such a claim can be upheld humbly without blurring real differences between religions.

People of different religions report certainty, peace or overwhelming experiences. What initially follows is that such experiences occur. If contradictory doctrines are derived from them, not all interpretations can be true in the same sense.

The Bible therefore expressly calls for examining spiritual claims. 1. John 4,1–3 connects this examination with confession of Jesus Christ. Not every experience is disputed; what is disputed is that its intensity makes it the supreme standard of truth.

In conversation, it helps to separate experience and explanation. “I experienced great peace” differs from “Therefore every teaching of my religious teacher is true.” The second claim needs additional reasons. This also applies to Christians: Personal experiences must not correct God's Word or establish a new, far-reaching doctrine.

When a researcher seeks natural causes of an illness, he initially makes a limited methodological decision. This does not automatically imply a statement about whether God exists. The transition to “Everything real is exclusively natural” is an additional worldview claim.

This distinction protects against two fallacies. Scientific explanations do not already refute God's action by showing natural connections. Conversely, an explanation currently missing does not yet prove a miracle. In both cases, more is claimed than the finding alone supplies.

The biblical Creator sustains an orderly world. Christians can therefore investigate natural processes seriously while asking what presuppositions research uses. In a dispute about a unique historical event, one must also disclose whether supernatural action is left unconsidered for methodological reasons or claimed to be impossible.

A naturalistic conversation partner can point to the advantages of reliable perception, learning and scientific error correction. This is a serious answer, rather than a claim that thinking is merely random nonsense. Anyone criticizing it must show which step remains unjustified.

The central distinction is: The origin of a conviction and its justification are different questions. A thought process's usefulness does not yet make every conclusion true. Nor does its bodily mediation automatically imply it cannot grasp truth.

CHRISTOlogisch traces the binding force of truth and consistent thinking to the truthful God who reveals himself. In conversation, we then examine the specific alternative: How does it justify the distinction between a merely useful and a genuinely true judgment? A blanket claim that every naturalist can know nothing whatsoever would go too far without further demonstration.