Running head: TRUTH, RELATIVISM, SKEPTICISM, …...TRUTH, RELATIVISM, SKEPTICISM, AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 3 actually is”,3 and “conformity of mind and reality”.4 Josef Seifert

Running head: TRUTH, RELATIVISM, SKEPTICISM, AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 1

J.M.J.

Truth, Relativism, Skepticism, and the Existence of God

TRUTH, RELATIVISM, SKEPTICISM, AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

2

Truth, Relativism, Skepticism, and the Existence of God

The idea that truth is subjective (rather than objective) is a popular viewpoint in the

modern world, along with the associated attitudes of relativism and skepticism. One way that

this can be exemplified is in the exhortation to ‘speak your truth’ (e.g., Oprah Winfrey in her

2018 Golden Globes speech1). The rejection of absolute truth and the embracement of a

relativist or skeptical attitude are obstacles to one’s understanding of and communion with God.

Furthermore, I think that such views can lead to adopting a negative, cynical, and/or nihilistic

outlook on life. Therefore, addressing the idea of objective (absolute) truth and the attitudes of

relativism and skepticism, especially from a Catholic perspective, can help improve one’s

communion with God and outlook on life.

Objective (absolute) truth

What is truth? Truth can be defined as the accurate/correct perception or description of

reality. In other words, “truth” can be defined as “the property (as of a statement) of being in

accord with fact or reality”,2 “the conformity of the intellect with what the thing perceived

1 CNN, “Read Oprah Winfrey’s Rousing Golden Globes Speech,” CNN Entertainment (January 10, 2018), accessed May 23, 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/08/entertainment/oprah-globes-speech-transcript/index.html. (e.g., “We also know it's the insatiable dedication to uncovering the absolute truth that keeps us from turning a blind eye to corruption and to injustice. . . . [W]hat I know for sure is that speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have.”); cf. Claire Fallon, “ ‘Speak Your Truth’ Isn’t About ‘Alternative Facts.’ It’s a Rallying Cry for Marginalized Voices,” HuffPost (January 11, 2018), accessed May 23, 2019, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/oprah-speak-your-truth-america_n_5a564f3fe4b03bc4d03d534a. 2 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, s.v. “truth,” accessed June 22, 2019, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth.


3

actually is”,3 and “conformity of mind and reality”.4 Josef Seifert explained that “according to a

realist position, truth consists in a unique conformity of a judgment to a state of affairs which at

the same time is asserted in the judgment and exists independently from it.”5 When I use the

term "truth" in this essay, by "truth" I mean the sense of the term "truth" that is conveyed by

these definitions.

It could be argued that truth is subjective and/or there is no such thing as objective

(absolute) truth. Similarly, it could be said that “thought is the bearer of truth”, and “the

existence of truth depends on man”, in “that truth depends upon man in the sense that it owes its

existence only to human thinking”.6 There are several considerations that stand against this line

of thinking and support the principle that there is objective (absolute) truth. In other words, there

are good reasons to conclude that truth “exists independently from the human mind.”7

First, human judgments can be “the same in kind”, but they are not identical, they are not

“one and the same.”8 This distinguishes human judgment from truth, since “strict identity” (or,

strict and universal identical-ness) is in “the nature of truth.”9 For example, 3 + 3 = 6 in the past,

in the present, and in the future.10 That is, the idea that 3 + 3 = 6 is “identical [with regard to]

3 Vincent Serpa, “What is truth?,” Catholic Answers (August 4, 2011): para. 2, accessed June 22, 2019, https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-truth. 4 Catholic Dictionary, s.v. “truth,” (Catholic Culture.org), accessed June 22, 2019, https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36958. 5 Josef Seifert, “Is the Existence of Truth Dependent upon Man?,” The review of metaphysics 35, no. 3 (1982): 463. 6 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 461. 7 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 463. 8 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 465. 9 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 465. 10 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 465.


4

different times and . . . different persons” and different places.11 When two different people

express the same true statement, what is being expressed is not “two individually different truths

of the same content.”12 Rather, the truth of the two statements is exactly the same, even when it

is stated by different people.13 “Many judgments [i.e., several people making a judgment] of the

same content” can “express, one single [identical] truth.”14 The judgments “share in” the

identical, universal, transcendent truth.15 In short, truth has a “transcendent” identical-ness

quality to it, and this transcendent quality shows that truth is objective (and, that it is independent

of the human mind).16

If truth is subjective or dependent on human thinking, then “truth” would not be

timeless.17 Subjectivity and human thinking are inherently temporal.18 The truth cannot be

subjective or dependent on human thinking, and then at the same time also be timeless.19

However, truth is timeless.20 For example, even though the particular wording of a statement

might no longer be true due to temporal changes (e.g., the statement “this event just happened

yesterday”), the truth within the statement is timelessly true (e.g., “this event happened on March

11, 1980”).21

Next, it should be pointed out that the truth or falsity of a proposition does not depend on

11 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 465. 12 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 466–467. 13 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 466–467. 14 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 467. 15 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 467. 16 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 466–467. 17 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 467–468. 18 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 467–468. 19 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 467–468. 20 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 467–468.


5

whether the proposition is thought or articulated.22 Whether a proposition is true or false is

independent from “whether or not someone actually holds them in his judgments.”23 The truth

(or falsity) of a proposition “is quite indifferent towards whether it is expressed by man or not.”24

Furthermore, if truth is subjective or dependent on human thinking, then “error and

falsity [could] exist without . . . corresponding truth”, which would be absurd.25 Falsity, in a

“logico-ontological” sense, “presupposes . . . truth”.26

Part of the essence of truth is its integrity and wholeness.27 If truth was subjective or

dependent on human thinking, then truth would be liable to being “fragmentary and incomplete”,

which would totally change the character and essential essence of what we mean by “truth.”28

Therefore, to say that the truth is subjective or dependent on human thinking is contradictory to

what we mean by “truth” (or at least, to what I mean by the term “truth” in this essay).29 This

leads us to a larger point: just as the concept of a ‘square circle’ is absurd because describing a

square as “circular” does not comport with the essence of a square, likewise saying that ‘the truth

is not objective, but rather it is subjective and/or dependent on human thinking’ does not comport

with the essence of truth.

The objectivity of truth and the fact that truth is independent of human thinking is also

21 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 468. 22 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 469–470. 23 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 469. 24 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 470. 25 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 469. 26 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 473–474. 27 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 473–475. 28 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 474. 29 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 473–475.


6

shown in the pondering of a proposition.30 One could ponder whether a proposition is true or

false.31 However, such pondering does not impact the truth or falsity of the proposition.32

Likewise, an errant or false view concerning the proposition does not diminish the truth of the

proposition.33 The proposition could be true even when perceived in error.34

Meaning-units (e.g., statements, thoughts) “are carriers of truth” but they are not truth

itself.35 Rather, “truth” is universal, timeless, clear, deep, internally consistent, harmonious, and

it has the feature of “ideal perfection” (i.e., it is “free of all deficiencies and imperfections”).36

When contemplating the concept of “truth,” truth shows itself to be “above and beyond all time

and place”.37 Likewise, the contemplation of truth reveals that the “truth remains the same quite

independently of whether men acknowledge it in their judgments”.38

Are there ‘degrees’ or ‘shades’ of truth?

It should be noted that when we speak of truth, “strictly speaking, there are no degrees of

truth. . . . A judgment is either true or it is false. . . . There is, therefore, no comparing of truth

and seeing it as true, truer, and truest. . . . We may always learn more about a thing, but our

knowledge does not become truer as we advance; it becomes more ample”.39 There are no

‘shades’ of truth. Something is either completely true, or it is false. “There are, however,

30 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 476. 31 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 476. 32 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 476. 33 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 476. 34 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 476. 35 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 478–480. 36 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 479. 37 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 478–479. 38 Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 479. 39 Paul J. Glenn, An Introduction to Philosophy (Aeterna Press, 2015): 152.


7

degrees of falsity. . . . Falsity is like the shadow; it has degrees of length and depth . . . . There

are, therefore, degrees of falsity, but no degrees of truth”.40 Furthermore, “truth never

contradicts truth”.41

Objective (absolute) moral truth and scientism

But, it could be argued that there are no objective (absolute) moral truths.42 Or, more to

the point: the only knowledge that we know is knowledge that is scientifically or mathematically

verifiable. In other words: although there might be objective (absolute) truth in the realm of that

which is scientifically or mathematically verifiable, there is no objective (absolute) truth with

regard to truth claims that cannot be scientifically or mathematically verified.

These claims could also be made taking a skeptical approach, rather than an absolute

approach; such as saying ‘we cannot be certain of any objective (absolute) moral truths.’ Or,

more to the point again: the only knowledge that we know for certain is knowledge that is

scientifically or mathematically verifiable. Again, in other words: although there might be

objective (absolute) truth in the realm of that which is scientifically or mathematically verifiable,

we cannot know for certain objective (absolute) truth with regard to truth claims that cannot be

scientifically or mathematically verified.

First, one of the consequences of the absence of objective (absolute) moral truths should

be pointed out: If there are no objective moral truths (or, we cannot be certain of such truths),

40 Glenn, Introduction to Philosophy, 152. 41 Glenn, Introduction to Philosophy, 98. 42 cf. Ronald Dworkin. “Objectivity and truth: You’d better believe it,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 25, no. 2 (Spring, 1996): 88.


8

then the arbiter of morality would become the individual or society.43 This would then mean that

the individual or society would determine moral truths, such as whether racism or child sexual

abuse was immoral or wrong.44 In such a worldview, racism or child sexual abuse would be

moral (or, the correct manner of behavior) if it was determined to be so by the individual or

society.45 Trent Horn pointed out that “if morality ultimately comes from the individual, we

have no grounds to say it [e.g., racism or child sexual abuse] is objectively wrong – only that it

conflicts with our own individual morality”; and “if morality comes from society, then society

can never be wrong.”46

But, is the only knowledge that we can know (or know for certain) that which can be

scientifically or objectively verified? Is it correct that there is no objective (absolute) truth

outside of science or math? Is it true that we cannot know for certain objective (absolute) truth

with regard to truth claims that cannot be scientifically or mathematically verified? This is

essentially scientism, which can be defined as “the philosophical assumption that the real is

reducible to what the empirical sciences can verify or describe.”47 Scientism can also be

described as “the reduction of all knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge.”48

43 cf. Trent Horn, Answering Atheism (San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers Press, 2013), 193–197. 44 cf. Horn, Answering Atheism, 193–197. 45 cf. Horn, Answering Atheism, 193–197. 46 Horn, Answering Atheism, 194–197. 47 Robert Barron, “The myth of the war between science and religion,” Word on Fire website (December 8, 2008): para. 2, accessed June 22, 2019, https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/the-myth-of-the-war-between-science-and-religion-2-2/331/. 48 Mary Farrow, “Bishop Barron: How to evangelize the 'nones',” Catholic News Agency (July 4, 2017): para. 6, accessed June 22, 2019, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/bishop-barron-evangelizing-the-nones-98159 (citing Bishop Robert Barron).


9

Math can only help us understand issues and concepts involving mathematics.49

Likewise, science can only help us understand the natural world.50 However, anything outside of

the natural world is outside the reach of science, and anything that does not involve mathematics

is outside of the realm of mathematics. For example, math and science cannot explain love,

beauty, or goodness, for these things are outside of the natural world and outside of the realm of

mathematics. Science cannot describe love, however a poem or novel could. Science cannot

inform us what is right and what is wrong, what is evil and what is good, what is beautiful and

what is ugly.51 Love, morality, and beauty are examples of that which “belong to a qualitatively

different category of being than the proper subject matter of the sciences.”52 This leads us to the

principle that, aside from the empirically verifiable (e.g., the natural world) or mathematically

verifiable, there is also another “dimension of reality [that is] knowable in a non-scientific but

still rational manner”.53 For example, this other dimension is knowable through philosophy,

literature,54 and art.

Of course, similar to relativism and skepticism (discussed below), the claim of scientism

is self-defeating and fails on its face, since the claim itself cannot be scientifically (or

49 cf. Horn, Answering Atheism, 116–117. 50 cf. Horn, Answering Atheism, 116–117. 51 Robert Barron, “Why the sciences will never disprove the existence of God,” Word on Fire website (October 1, 2012): para. 1, accessed June 22, 2019, https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/why-the-sciences-will-never-disprove-the-existence-of-god/. 52 Barron, “Why the sciences,” para. 1. 53 Barron, “The Myth of the War,” para. 2. 54 Barron, “The Myth of the War,” para. 2.


10

mathematically) verified.55 For example, an experiment utilizing the scientific method would be

categorically and inherently unable to demonstrate that we cannot know with certainty objective

(absolute) truths that cannot be scientifically or mathematically verified.56 Put another way, an

experiment utilizing the scientific method would be categorically and inherently unable to

demonstrate that we cannot know with certainty non-scientific (and non-mathematic) objective

(absolute) truths. Proving the claim of scientism is outside the purview of science.

Therefore, scientism is wrong and we can have (certain) knowledge that is outside of the

realm of that which can be scientifically or mathematically verified. This means that objective

(absolute) truth is not limited to only the realms of science and math. If we are not limited to

only knowledge that is scientifically or mathematically verifiable, then there is no good reason to

limit objective (absolute) truth to that which is scientifically or mathematically verifiable.

Similarly, if we are not limited to only knowing with certainty that which is scientifically or

mathematically verifiable, then there is no good reason to limit our ability to be certain of

objective (absolute) truth to that which is scientifically or mathematically verifiable.

Relativism and Skepticism

The denial of objective truth can lead directly to an attitude of relativism and/or

skepticism, since both relativism and skepticism involve a rejection of objective (absolute) truth.

55 Chris Stefanick, Absolute Relativism: The New Dictatorship and What to Do About It (El Cajon, CA: Catholic Answers, Inc., 2011): 4; cf. Farrow, ““Bishop Barron: How to evangelize the 'nones',” para. 9; Karlo Broussard, “Is the only real knowledge scientific knowledge?,” Catholic Answers (December 15, 2015): para. 5–6, accessed June 22, 2019, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-the-only-real-knowledge-scientific-knowledge. 56 cf. Farrow, ““Bishop Barron: How to evangelize the 'nones',” para. 9; Broussard, “Is the only real knowledge,” para. 5–6.


11

Relativism holds that there is no objective truth (i.e., truth is subjective and the truth is different

for each person, context, etc.). In other words, “relativism holds that what is true for one may

not be true for all, or may not be true for one in all circumstances”.57 Absolute skepticism holds

that “man cannot attain to certain knowledge of anything; he cannot surely and positively know

truth”.58 Qualified skepticism “admit[s] the possibility of attaining probability”, in that ‘it is

possible to attain knowledge that is probably true’, although man cannot attain knowledge that is

certainly true.59 Overall, all skepticism (both absolute skepticism and qualified skepticism)

“denies the possibility of achieving certitude”, of having certainty of the truth.60 Unlike the

relativists, the skeptics don’t necessarily hold that there is no such thing as objective truth, but

rather instead the skeptics hold that man is incapable of knowing (objective) truth with any

certainty. The alternative/opposite view to skepticism is called dogmatism, which holds “that

certitude is possible”.61

Both skepticism and relativism are self-defeating philosophies. Relativism, in claiming

that there is no objective truth, is making a truth claim. The claim of relativism “can’t be true

because it contradicts itself – it’s what we call a self-contradicting proposition.”62 The response

to a relativist could be: ‘well, you may say there is no objective truth, but that is not true for me.

For me there is objective truth.’63 However, what the relativist really means is that ‘it is

57 Glenn, Introduction to Philosophy, 159. 58 Glenn, Introduction to Philosophy, 65, 154. 59 Glenn, Introduction to Philosophy, 65–66, 154–155. 60 Glenn, Introduction to Philosophy, 154. 61 Glenn, Introduction to Philosophy, 159. 62 Stefanick, Absolute Relativism, 3–4. 63 cf. Stefanick, Absolute Relativism, 3–4.


12

objectively true that there is no objective truth.’64 The claim relativism makes fails on its face –

it is self-refuting. Likewise, skepticism claims, “it is certain nothing is certain”65 and “that it is

certain that there is no certitude”.66 Just like the claim of relativism, the claim of skepticism also

fails on its face – it is self-refuting. Here, Fr. Paul J. Glenn’s analysis of skepticism is worth

quoting:

Skepticism . . . uses reason to show that there is no use using reason. The skeptic cannot speak without affirming his own existence as a certain fact, without affirming certain meaning in the words he utters, without affirming the certain existence of those to whom he speaks, without affirming the truth of his own theory that no truth of theory is possible. Therefore, the skeptic cannot open his mouth without contradicting himself and denying his own philosophy even as he states it. The [(“sincere”67)] skeptic has no recourse but to remain forever silent.68

Sincere skepticism results in the paralysis of philosophical thought.69 A modification of the

observation articulated by René Descartes (a version of which can also be found in the thought of

St. Augustine of Hippo)70 could perhaps offer the sincere skeptic a life raft, or rather a

foundation, a firm footing from which the skeptic can build and climb up to the solid ground of

objective truth: Even if one doubts his existence or doubts objective truth, he cannot doubt that

he is doubting.71 He must be certain of his doubt, that is, certain of his doubting. Therefore, if

the skeptic is certain of one thing (that he doubts), and even if he is only certain of that one thing

(i.e., that he doubts), this proves that the essential premise of skepticism (i.e., we can never be

64 cf. Stefanick, Absolute Relativism, 3–4. 65 Glenn, Introduction to Philosophy, 39. 66 Glenn, Introduction to Philosophy, 155. 67 Glenn, Introduction to Philosophy, 155. 68 Glenn, Introduction to Philosophy, 39. 69 Glenn, Introduction to Philosophy, 39. 70 Alasdair MacIntyre, God, Philosophy, Universities: A Selective History of the Catholic Philosophical Tradition (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2009): 115.


13

certain of objective truth) is wrong. It is certainly objectively (absolutely) true that the skeptic is

doubting. Certainty can be achieved. From this base, the skeptic can now approach and step out

into the illuminating light of objective (absolute) truth.72

The existence of God

Having analyzed objective (absolute) truth, relativism, and skepticism, I submit that the

next logical step is to investigate the existence of God. If there is objective (absolute) truth, if

the truth is not subjective and dependent on the human mind, then we can investigate whether it

is true that God exists. It seems to me that determining whether God exists is the most important

question to ask and most important issue to resolve for every single human being – because the

answer to the question should have a primary influence on our worldview, how we think, and

how we act – and if the truth is objective and can be known with certainty, what follows is that

we are capable of determining whether it is true that God exists. First, I will explore (to a degree

and in a limited fashion) how we can understand and define who God is, in order to explain what

I mean by “God.” Then, I will set out some of the arguments for the existence of God.

Describing God: Who God is

When examining whether or not God exists, it is important to understand what and whom

we mean by God. When I use the term “God,” I am not referring to one being among many,

albeit a supreme and most-powerful being. Rather, St. Thomas Aquinas described God as ipsum

esse subsistens.73,74 “God” can also be described as “Subsistent Being Itself, Self-Subsistent

71 cf. MacIntyre, God, Philosophy, Universities, 115. 72 cf. Seifert, “the Existence of Truth,” 479. 73 John C. Wai-Leung, “The meaning and challenge of St. Thomas’s metaphysical concept of God as Ipsum Esse Subsistens,” Fu Jen International Religious Studies 1, no. 1 (2007): 149


14

Existence, [and/or] Subsistent Act of Existing or Existence Itself”.75 Bishop Robert Barron has

unpacked St. Thomas’s description of God as “ipsum esse subsistens” as meaning “the sheer act

of ‘to be’ itself” (as opposed to “ens summum (highest being)”).76 Barron explained that the

“Catholic metaphysical tradition refers to God not as a being but as Being itself.”77 Still another

way of describing God has come from St. Anselm, who described God as “that, than which

nothing greater can be conceived”78, and alternatively stated as “that than which no greater can

be thought.”79 Barron has also unpacked St. Anselm’s description of God, noting that “at first

blush, this seems a straightforward designation of the highest being, but this cannot be the case,

for the highest being, plus every other being, would be greater than the highest being alone, and

hence not that than which nothing greater can be conceived”80 (it should also be noted that this is

a completely different concept than that of the ancient Greek gods, because Zeus (the supreme

(quoting the statement “Dues sit ipsum esse subsistens” and citing St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1, q.4 a.2). 74 Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas, 2nd ed., trans. Fathers of the Dominican English Province (1920): I, q. 4, a. 2. (In this English translation, St. Thomas is translated as having stated: “Objection 3. . . . the essence of God is existence itself”, and as well as having stated, “I answer that . . . God is existence itself, of itself subsistent. . . . Since therefore God is subsisting being itself, nothing of the perfect of being can be wanting to Him.”). 75 Wai-Leung, “The meaning and challenge,” p. 149. 76 Robert Barron, “Bridging a false divide: Systematic theology and scriptural exegesis belong together,” First Things (April 2014): para. 18, accessed June 21, 2019, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/04/bridging-a-false-divide. 77 Barron, “Bridging a false divide,” para. 18. 78 Kenneth Einar Himma, “Anselm: Ontological Argument for God's Existence,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed June 22, 2019, https://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/ (quoting and citing St. Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogium); cf. Barron, “Bridging a false divide,” para. 19. 79 Trent Horn, Bishop Barron’s The mystery of God: Who God is and Why He matters, Study Guide (Skokie, IL: Word on Fire): 5 (quoting and citing St. Anselm of Canterbury, Monologion). 80 Barron, “Bridging a false divide,” para. 19.


15

deity) plus the world is greater than Zeus alone81). When I use the term "God" in this essay, I

mean the sense of the term "God" that is conveyed by all of these descriptions of God (e.g., St.

Thomas’s description and St. Anselm’s description).82 With this sense of what I mean by “God”

in mind, I will next examine a few arguments for the existence of God.

Arguments for the existence of God

Although there are numerous arguments for the existence of God, in this essay I am only

going to focus on three: (1) the argument from change; (2) the argument concerning essence and

existence; and (3) the kalām cosmological argument. The Aristotelian argument points out that

change occurs, and within change is a hierarchical series; and such hierarchical series requires an

uncaused cause (i.e., God). The Thomistic argument points out that essence (i.e., what

something is) is distinguishable from existence (i.e., that something is), and for everything that is

contingent, its existence ultimately derives from that whose essence is existence. There can only

be one whose essence is existence, for everything else its essence is distinct from existence. The

kalām argument points out that the universe began to exist, and something must have caused it to

begin to exist.

The argument from change. The first argument I will explore comes to us from

81 Robert Barron, Catholicism (NY: Image Books, Random House, Inc., 2011): 63. 82 It also worth noting that this sense of “God” (as articulated in the preceding descriptions) aligns with the revelation of God in the biblical passage about the burning bush (Exodus 3:1–22). “Then Moses said to God, ‘If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?’ God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And he said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you’ ” (Ex 13–15). Bishop Barron explained this passage, noting that God’s “name was simply ‘to be’ ”. Barron further explained: “To be God, therefore, is to be to be” (Barron, Catholicism, 61–63).


16

Aristotle. It begins with the observation that “change occurs” in the world around us.83 Change

even occurs in our mind, with our changing thoughts.84 “Change is the actualization of a

potential.”85 Something must have the potential to change, and then that potential is actualized

when the change occurs.86 Edward Feser used the example of coffee in a cup: the coffee first has

the potential to become cold, and then after some time of sitting on the table that potential is

actualized and the coffee is cold.87 “Any mere potential can only be actualized by something

that is already actual.”88 In other words, “change requires a changer.”89 This is because mere

potentiality cannot do anything on its own.90 Potentiality cannot act, but it can be acted upon.91

The potentiality cannot activate itself, it must be activated by an actual (not a potential)

activator.92 This actualizer (i.e., the changer) “must be something already actual.”93

There are two types of changes or “series of changes”: “a linear causal series”, and “a

hierarchical causal series”.94 An example of a series of linear changes are those that happen in

chronological order, such as me throwing a baseball, which causes that baseball to fly through

the air, and then the baseball hits and breaks a window. Another example would be me sitting

here . . . and (going back in time) I exist because of my parents, and (going back in time) my

83 Edward Feser, Five Proofs of the Existence of God (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2017): 17–18. 84 Feser, Five Proofs, 17. 85 Feser, Five Proofs, 19. 86 Feser, Five Proofs, 18–19. 87 Feser, Five Proofs, 18. 88 Feser, Five Proofs, 19. 89 Feser, Five Proofs, 19. 90 Feser, Five Proofs, 19. 91 Feser, Five Proofs, 19. 92 Feser, Five Proofs, 19. 93 Feser, Five Proofs, 19.


17

parents existed because of their parents . . . and the conditions necessary for life to exist are due

to the Big Bang . . . . You will notice here that in a linear series of changes, once the change

occurs it is no longer dependent on the changer.95 I depended on my parents to be born, but once

born I no longer depend on them for life in the same way. I could walk away or even die after

throwing the baseball, but the baseball, once thrown, is not dependent on me to continue to fly

through the air.96

In contrast, in a hierarchical causal series the later changes and causes are dependent on

earlier changes and causes.97 In a hierarchical causal series, the causes could be simultaneous.98

The “later” changes and causes are “later” in the sense of deriving from and being dependent on

the “earlier” changes and causes.99 An example would be a snapshot of me holding a pen (here,

we are focusing on “a single moment of time”).100 I am able to hold the pen because my fingers

have the potential to hold it, and that potential is being actualized by my muscles. My muscles

have the potential to cause my fingers to hold the pen, and that potential is being actualized by

the firing of motor neurons. The motor neurons have the potential to cause the muscles to act in

a certain way, and that potential is actualized by the structure of the atom.101 And so on and so

on. Even though all of these causes are happening simultaneously, change is occurring, in that

potentiality is being actualized by an actual actualizer. However, at some point in a hierarchical

94 Feser, Five Proofs, 20–21; 25, note 1. 95 Feser, Five Proofs, 22–23. 96 cf. Feser, Five Proofs, 23. 97 Feser, Five Proofs, 22. 98 Feser, Five Proofs, 22. 99 Feser, Five Proofs, 22–23. 100 Feser, Five Proofs, 23. 101 Feser, Five Proofs, 26.


18

series, there must be an uncaused actualizer, some nonderivative ultimate cause. For the series to

go on endlessly, that is, for there to be an infinite regress, would be absurd.102 There must be

some final actual actualizer that causes the (first) potentiality to become actualized in the series;

and this final actual actualizer cannot have any potentiality or the series would not exist, since

potentiality cannot act on itself or act on its own. The uncaused caused must be pure act, pure

actuality, otherwise the series cannot get off the ground (so to speak) in the first place. This is

not to say that linear causal series need an uncaused cause – in Aristotle’s view the world did not

have a beginning, it had always been103 – but hierarchical causal series do need an ultimate

nonderivative uncaused cause.104

We could also call this “uncaused cause”105 the “Unmoved Mover” (which was

Aristotle’s term),106 the unchanged changer, and the “unactualized actualizer”.107 It is this, the

uncaused cause (unactualized actualizer, etc.) that we call “God.”108 God, who “is pure

actuality” (with no potentiality).109 God, who continuously actualizes us, in whom our being is

ultimately grounded, who is constantly breathing us into being.110 This analysis focuses on

hierarchical causal series rather than linear causal series, and therefore this is not a watchmaker-

102 cf. Feser, Five Proofs, 35. 103 Feser, Five Proofs, 20–21. 104 Feser, Five Proofs, 21–29. 105 Feser, Five Proofs, 27. 106 Feser, Five Proofs, 27. 107 Feser, Five Proofs, 27. 108 Feser, Five Proofs, 29. 109 Feser, Five Proofs, 27, 29. 110 This Unmoved Mover (unactualized actualizer, etc.) “must be one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient” (Feser, Five Proofs, 35) – but an analysis of all of these attributes of God is outside the scope of this essay.


19

God who creates the world, sets it into motion, and then departs. Our continued “moment-to-

moment”111 existence derives from God who is pure actuality.112

The argument concerning essence and existence. The second argument I will explore

comes to us from St. Thomas Aquinas. It begins with the observation that with regard to the

things of this world, we can distinguish between the essence of a thing and the existence of the

thing.113 To know the essence of something is to know what that thing is.114 Essence is “what it

is”, and existence is “the fact that it is.”115

We can know the essence of something, yet still not know whether that thing exists.116

For example, we can know the essence of a unicorn, but the essence of the unicorn does not

thereby entail the existence of unicorns.117 Another example is a woolly mammoth – there is the

essence of the woolly mammoth, but that essence does not tell me whether the mammoth is

extinct or not (i.e., whether it exists or not).118 Edward Feser explained, “if the essence and

existence of a thing were not distinct features of reality, then knowing the former should suffice

for knowing the latter, yet it doesn’t.”119 Essence does not necessarily entail existence,120

For an examination of these divine attributes and why the Unmoved Mover must have these attributes see Feser, Five Proofs, 29–35, 184–232. 111 Feser, Five Proofs, 31. 112 Feser, Five Proofs, 26–29. 113 Feser, Five Proofs, 117, 128. 114 Feser, Five Proofs, 117. 115 Feser, Five Proofs, 117. 116 Feser, Five Proofs, 117–118, 124. 117 Feser, Five Proofs, 118. 118 Feser, Five Proofs, 118. 119 Feser, Five Proofs, 118. 120 Feser, Five Proofs, 124–125.


20

although existence does necessarily entail essence.121 In a sense, existence animates the

essence.122 But, in order for existence to occur, there must be an essence to animate.123

There are only two “possible kinds of thing”: “things whose essence is distinct from their

existence, and a thing whose essence is identical with its existence.”124 There can only be one

thing whose essence and existence are identical.125 If the essence and existence are identical,

then its “essence just is existence itself.”126 If some-thing’s essence just is existence itself, and

another thing’s essence just is existence itself, the two essences would look (and be) identical –

and since there is no distinguishing characteristic, nothing to differentiate the two, it follows that

they are one and the same thing, that is, existence itself (and, they are not in fact two separate

things).127 If there was something to differentiate the two things, then one or both of their

essences would be distinct from their existence, because in order to differentiate the two things,

at least one of their essence’s would have to be something other than existence itself (because,

again, if their essence is existence itself, then there would be nothing to distinguish the two

things).128 For that whose essence just is existence itself, “it would have existence just by virtue

of its essence.”129 Its essence is existence, its “very nature” would be existence.130 It would be

necessary rather than contingent, in that “it would be something that could not possibly not exist,

121 cf. Feser, Five Proofs, 124 (where “a thing whose essence and existence are distinct cannot exist until existence is added or imparted to its essence.”). 122 cf. Feser, Five Proofs, 124. 123 cf. Feser, Five Proofs, 124. 124 Feser, Five Proofs, 127. 125 Feser, Five Proofs, 127. 126 Feser, Five Proofs, 120. 127 Feser, Five Proofs, 118–122. 128 Feser, Five Proofs, 118–122. 129 Feser, Five Proofs, 119.


21

not even in principle.”131 Furthermore, “it could not derive its existence from anything else”

because its essence is existence.132 It is “subsistent existence itself.”133

For everything else, whose essence is necessarily distinct from its existence, its existence

must be caused by something else.134 This is because it cannot cause its own existence, because

causing its own existence presupposes its existence.135 A thing cannot “do anything [such as

cause existence,] . . . unless it first exists.”136 Furthermore, since essence and existence are

distinct (that is, for everything other than the one who is “subsistent existence itself”), essence

cannot cause existence (because, “existence doesn’t follow from . . . essence”, as shown above

by the extinct animal example), and therefore its existence must be derived from something

else.137 For that whose essence is distinct from its existence, at any and every given moment its

existence must derive from something else.138 Here we have a hierarchical causal series, just as

we did with the argument from change (Aristotle’s argument) that was analyzed above.139 And,

as noted above, there cannot be an infinite regress in a hierarchical causal series, there must be

some primary ultimate cause.140 Without a primary ultimate cause, the hierarchical series would

never come into existence, because every other cause is a contingent cause itself to be caused.141

130 Feser, Five Proofs, 119. 131 Feser, Five Proofs, 119. 132 Feser, Five Proofs, 126. 133 Feser, Five Proofs, 126. 134 Feser, Five Proofs, 124–125. 135 Feser, Five Proofs, 125. 136 Feser, Five Proofs, 124. 137 Feser, Five Proofs, 124–125 138 Feser, Five Proofs, 125. 139 Feser, Five Proofs, 126. 140 Feser, Five Proofs, 126. 141 Feser, Five Proofs, 126.


22

Here, this needed primary ultimate uncaused cause is “that which is subsistent existence itself”,

whose essence is existence, that is, God.142,143

The kalām cosmological argument. The third and final argument I will explore can be

traced back to “the Muslim philosopher Al-Ghazali.”144 As mentioned above, Aristotle held the

view that the world had always existed (i.e., that there could be an infinite regress of a linear

causal series), but this view does not affect Aristotle’s argument for the existence of God one

way or the other. Whether there can be an infinite regress of a linear causal series or whether

there cannot be an infinite regress of a linear causal series (or, whether the world had always

existed, or whether it did not always exist and therefore had a beginning) does not matter to (or

affect the validity of) Aristotle’s argument for the existence of God, since Aristotle’s argument is

concerned with hierarchical causal series rather than linear causal series. The kalām

cosmological argument takes a different approach, in that it posits that the world does have a

beginning and has not always existed forever.

142 Feser, Five Proofs, 126. 143 Similar to the argument from change (see note 107 above), Edward Feser points out that that which is “subsistent existence itself must be one, necessarily existing, the uncaused cause of everything other than itself, purely actual, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient” (Feser, Five Proofs, 128). However, exploring these attributes of God is outside the scope of this essay. For an examination of the divine attributes and why that which is subsistent existence itself must have these attributes see Feser, Five Proofs, 29–35, 126–128, 184–232.


23

The kalām argument, as formulated by William Lane Craig, is as follows:

Premise 1: “Whatever begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.”145

Premise 2: “The universe began to exist.”146

Conclusion: “Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence.”147

This argument is supported by the principle that something cannot come from nothing.148

Written another way: some-thing cannot come from no-thing.149 Furthermore, if there were an

infinite number of days before today, then we would have never gotten to today.150 In other

words, “there would always be ‘one more day’ in history for time to move through, and today

could never happen.”151 Since an infinite number of days before today would mean that we

would never have reached today, this means that the proposal that the universe has always

existed is wrong – and it therefore shows that “the universe had a beginning.”152

There is also scientific support for the premise that the universe had a beginning. Trent

Horn has pointed out that “the second law of thermodynamics, [] states that matter and energy

always tend toward disorder (or what scientists call entropy).”153 This means that, according to

the second law of thermodynamics, “everything, including heat and energy, moves toward

144 Horn, Answering Atheism, 123. 145 Horn, Answering Atheism, 124. 146 Horn, Answering Atheism, 124. 147 Horn, Answering Atheism, 124. 148 Horn, Answering Atheism, 124–126. 149 Horn, Answering Atheism, 124–126. 150 Horn, Answering Atheism, 126–127. 151 Horn, Answering Atheism, 126. 152 Horn, Answering Atheism, 126–127. 153 Horn, Answering Atheism, 128.


24

equilibrium.”154 Entropy will continue to increase and increase, and eventually the universe will

reach an equilibrium and life will be extinguished.155 If the universe has always existed (and

therefore did not begin to exist), then the equilibrium would have already been reached and life

would have been extinguished, since there was an infinite amount of time for the universe to

reach equilibrium before today.156 This shows that the universe has not always existed, and did

in fact have a beginning.

The Big Bang theory (i.e., the “Standard Model”) also supports the contention that the

universe began to exist.157 According to the Big Bang theory, there was “an expansion of space

(as well as time, matter, and energy) from an infinitely dense point called a singularity.”158 This

theory is supported by observations of “cosmic radiation” in the universe and stars moving away

from each other.159 This expansion of space, time, matter, and energy from an infinitely dense

point indicates that the universe began to exist.

It should be noted that the argument states that “whatever begins to exist must have a

cause for its existence”, not ‘everything has a cause.’160 Also, as noted above, the conclusion

states that “the universe has a cause for its existence.” Since an infinite regress would be absurd

and untenable, the ultimate cause of the universe must be the uncaused cause, that is, God.

154 Horn, Answering Atheism, 128. 155 Horn, Answering Atheism, 128–130. 156 Horn, Answering Atheism, 128–130. 157 Horn, Answering Atheism, 132. 158 Horn, Answering Atheism, 132. 159 Horn, Answering Atheism, 131–132.


25

Conclusion

Truth is objective (rather than subjective) and is not dependent on human thinking. This

is shown by the fact that truth is identical (i.e., when the same truth is stated multiple times or by

different people, it is still the same single one truth), truth is timeless, and the truth is not

influenced or affected or changed by whether it is perceived, or whether it is perceived correctly

(error and false views doe not change the truth). Furthermore, the truth has wholeness and

integrity, and it is not fragmented into parts. After analyzing objective (absolute) truth, I next

examined relativism and skepticism, and it was shown that both philosophies are self-refuting.

Then, I set out some of the arguments for the existence of God. The argument from change

identifies that change occurs, and shows that change must be ultimately caused by an uncaused

cause (i.e., God). The argument concerning essence and existence shows that essence and

existence can be distinguished, that there can only be one whose essence just is existence, and for

everything else their essence is distinct from their existence and they must be caused by the

uncaused cause whose essence is existence (i.e., God). The kalām cosmological argument

recognizes that everything that has a beginning must have been caused to exist, and it observes

and points out that the universe began to exist (and therefore must have ultimately been caused

by the uncaused cause, that is, God).

Suggested Further Research

After examining whether objective (absolute) truth exists, evaluating the philosophies of

skepticism and relativism, and determining whether God exists and who God is, I submit that the

next step would be to determine how best to commune with God. Furthermore, I suggest that the

160 Horn, Answering Atheism, 133.


26

best way to determine how best to commune with God is to examine whether any of the various

religions is the true religion offering the true path to God. I would further suggest that since

Jesus is a figure that is recognized not only in Christianity but also within strains of Judaism,

Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism,161 that the best place to start is to determine whether Jesus

Christ was a real historical figure. If such an investigation does show that Jesus was a historical

figure (and that the Gospels are reliable), then the next natural step would be to determine

whether Jesus was who He said He was, since He claimed to be God (and, a good route for

examining this claim would be an investigation into whether He truly rose from the dead). There

are only three options: Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or Lord.162 If He is who He said He is,

then Christianity (in general, when compared to the other non-Christian religions) is the true

religion offering the true path to God. One should next ask whether Jesus Christ established a

visible Church with a visible structure, and if so, which one of the various Christians religions is

that visible Church that Christ established? I suggest that an in-depth examination will reveal

that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Jesus Christ, the one apostolic

Church that can trace its unbroken lineage all the way back to St. Peter and the Apostles.

161 Michael Fitzgerald, Christ and the other religions (Commission for Interreligious Dialogue, Vatican website), accessed June 22, 2019, http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01031997_p-29_en.html. 162 see C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Book II, §3, accessed August 1, 2019, ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Mere%20Christianity%20-%20Lewis.pdf.


27

References

Aquinas, Thomas. The Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas, 2nd ed. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. 1920. Accessed June 26, 2019, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1004.htm.

Barron, Robert. “Bridging a false divide: Systematic theology and scriptural exegesis belong

together.” First Things (April 2014). Accessed June 21, 2019, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/04/bridging-a-false-divide.

Barron, Robert. Catholicism NY: Image Books, Random House, Inc., 2011. Barron, Robert. “The myth of the war between science and religion.” Word on Fire website

(December 8, 2008). Accessed June 22, 2019, https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/the-myth-of-the-war-between-science-and-religion-2-2/331/.

Barron, Robert. “Why the sciences will never disprove the existence of God.” Word on Fire

website (October 1, 2012). Accessed June 22, 2019, https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/why-the-sciences-will-never-disprove-the-existence-of-god/.

Broussard, Karlo. “Is the only real knowledge scientific knowledge?” Catholic Answers

(December 15, 2015). Accessed June 22, 2019, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-the-only-real-knowledge-scientific-knowledge.

Catholic Dictionary. Catholic Culture.org. Accessed June 22, 2019,

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36958. CNN. “Read Oprah Winfrey’s Rousing Golden Globes Speech.” CNN Entertainment (January

10, 2018). Accessed May 23, 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/08/entertainment/oprah-globes-speech-transcript/index.html.

Dworkin, Ronald. “Objectivity and truth: You’d better believe it.” Philosophy and Public Affairs

25, no. 2 (Spring, 1996): 87–139. Fallon, Claire. “ ‘Speak Your Truth’ Isn’t About ‘Alternative Facts.’ It’s a Rallying Cry for

Marginalized Voices.” HuffPost (January 11, 2018). Accessed May 23, 2019, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/oprah-speak-your-truth-america_n_5a564f3fe4b03bc4d03d534a.


28

Farrow, Mary. “Bishop Barron: How to evangelize the 'nones'.” Catholic News Agency (July 4, 2017). Accessed June 22, 2019, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/bishop-barron-evangelizing-the-nones-98159.

Feser, Edward. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2017. Fitzgerald, Michael. Christ and the other religions. Commission for Interreligious Dialogue,

Vatican website. Accessed June 22, 2019, http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01031997_p-29_en.html.

Glenn, Paul J. An Introduction to Philosophy. Aeterna Press, 2015 (original copyright: St. Louis,

MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1944). Gottlieb, Paula. “Aristotle on Non-contradiction.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Spring 2019 Edition, edited by Edward N. Zalta. Accessed April 27, 2019, <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/>.

Himma, Kenneth Einar. “Anselm: Ontological Argument for God's Existence” Internet

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed June 22, 2019, https://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/. Horn, Trent. Answering Atheism. San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers Press, 2013. Horn, Trent. Bishop Barron’s The mystery of God: Who God is and Why He matters, Study

Guide. Skokie, IL: Word on Fire. Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. Accessed August 1, 2019,

ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Mere%20Christianity%20-%20Lewis.pdf. MacIntyre, Alasdair. God, Philosophy, Universities: A Selective History of the Catholic

Philosophical Tradition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2009. Seifert, Josef. “Is the Existence of Truth Dependent upon Man?” The review of metaphysics 35,

no. 3 (1982): 461–481. Serpa, Vincent. “What is truth?” Catholic Answers (August 4, 2011). Accessed June 22, 2019,

https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-truth. Stefanick, Chris. Absolute Relativism: The New Dictatorship and What to Do About It. El Cajon,

CA: Catholic Answers, Inc., 2011.


29

Wai-Leung, John C. “The meaning and challenge of St. Thomas’s metaphysical concept of God

as Ipsum Esse Subsistens.” Fu Jen International Religious Studies 1, no. 1 (2007): 149–170.

Documents

Running head: TRUTH, RELATIVISM, SKEPTICISM, …...TRUTH, RELATIVISM, SKEPTICISM, AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 3 actually is”,3 and “conformity of mind and reality”.4 Josef Seifert