In a sense, to say that something is true is redundant. The words “is” and “true” essentially signify the same thing. Thus when we say that God is truth, we understand that we are predicating of God absolute being. We leave aside for the present the final, or, perhaps more properly, primary distinction between God as pure being and God as completely transcendent and not receptive of any predication. Our current subject of discussion is not the absolute transcendence of God but God’s relation with creation. That God is truth and that this truth is one, not many, follows logically; for as truth, God is the objective measure by which all other things are measured. There cannot be two separate objective measures of truth; for if these two measures agreed on every occasion, then they would be not two but one, and if they disagreed, then at most one of the measures could accurately be said to be such a measure. A statement that claims that an individual creature has a given quality is true only insofar as it reflects the existence (i.e., the being) of that quality in that creature. This existence (being) is derived from God. Thus the existence of all qualities are granted by God, and it is true that a creature has a quality only if God has granted existence to that quality in that particular. On a fundamental level, even a mundane assertion is true if and only if God has granted it existence.

faith

Keeping this in mind, we move on to the perhaps controversial statement that all men believe in God. That is, all men believe in objective truth, even those who refuse to admit it to themselves. Men of course vary in the accuracy of their belief. We can give a graded list of these different types of belief. The list is in no way exhaustive and merely represents a few examples. We begin with those who have the most perfect belief possible for men, belief that God is one, good, and transcendent. This is the traditional view. Next we have what we may call the scientific view. Many of the proponents of this view vigorously deny God, but yet they do not explain what the one measure of objective truth is. Sensing this problem they claim that they are merely attempting to approximate reality, but this just pushes the problem back. There is still one objective thing (truth) at which they are aiming. If they are aiming at truth, then truth must have existence, or else they might as well be aiming at nothing. This brings us to the root of the problem: there can be no ontological distinctions without metaphysics. Try as they might to denounce metaphysics, it always lurks in their psyche whenever thy make an assertion in speech or thought. That is why we say that they believe in God, only in a very distorted and degenerate form. Even lower than the scientific view is the extreme pseudo-dialectical view of the Marxists.

We say pseudo-dialectical because what the Marxists regard as dialectic is in fact an inversion of the dialectic of the ancient philosophers. For the latter dialectic was a means of removing contingent truths from the psyche as a means of reaching the one unqualified principle of all things (God). For the Marxists dialectic is an insane process of constant and radical revision of theories, a removing of current beliefs but not to achieve transcendence, only further and constant removal of ideas. There is a desire for constant flux and movement, never resting on one theory. For example, there are Marxists today who reject modern science, despite the fact that the their world view was partly based on it. They do this because they claim that modern science developed in a chauvinist, feminist, oppressive culture, and is therefore suspect. By so doing they undermine the very basis of their philosophy, but this does not bother them, for they care not for foundation, only revolution. How can we say that such men believe in God? Because in their frenzy of theorizing and revision, even they wish to assert the truth of a particular theory. Their understanding of truth is so poor that they can claim that a theory is true for now, subsequently abandoning it. But nevertheless, in promoting a theory they are implicitly making a claim about its existence, about it having a relationship to what really is in the world, to the truth. Of course their claims must be taken for the nonsense that they are, for they have no solid ground to stand on.

Only a consciously and proudly metaphysical system can legitimately make claims about truth.