beginner · 16 min
Last reviewed April 26, 2026

What Is Truth? The Correspondence Theory and Its Rivals

When we say a statement is "true," what exactly do we mean?

Philosophical

Why it matters

Pilate's question ("What is truth?") has never been more in the air. Contemporary relativism, postmodern skepticism, and casual "your truth / my truth" language often masquerade as humility. But incoherent accounts of truth undermine every other intellectual project — including science, history, and ethics. Starting here clears the ground for everything else.

The main case

The correspondence theory of truth — a statement is true if and only if it corresponds to reality — is the default position of ordinary language, science, and law. Rival theories (coherentism, pragmatism, consensus, social construction) each face insurmountable internal problems: they either smuggle correspondence back in, become self-refuting, or fail to do the work truth is supposed to do. "There is no objective truth" is itself either an objective truth claim (self-refuting) or a mere preference (no reason to accept it). Recovering a clear view of truth is the first task of honest inquiry.

Claim · Evidence · Objection · Response

1.Correspondence is how we actually use the word "true."

Widely accepted

Evidence

  • A witness in court is asked to tell "the truth" — meaning what actually happened.
  • Scientific claims are tested against reality, not merely internal coherence.
  • Children grasp correspondence intuitively ("did it really happen?") before they can articulate the concept.

Strongest objection

"Coherence is how we actually verify truth in practice."

Response

Coherence is a test for truth, not the meaning of truth. Two coherent-but-mutually-exclusive sets of beliefs cannot both be true; only one can correspond to reality.

Philosophical
Sources
  • Reasonable Faith — William Lane Craig (2008 (3rd ed.))scholarlyFind on Amazon
  • Scaling the Secular City — J.P. Moreland (1987)scholarlyFind on Amazon

2.Relativism is self-refuting.

Widely accepted

Evidence

  • "There is no objective truth" applies to itself — is that statement objectively true?
  • "All truth is cultural" — is this cultural, or true across all cultures?
  • Moral relativism cannot critique Nazi Germany without appealing to trans-cultural standards.

Strongest objection

"Strict relativism may be incoherent, but a softer pluralism avoids the problem."

Response

Softer pluralisms either still make universal claims (self-refuting in the same way) or reduce to tolerance preferences (not a theory of truth at all).

Philosophical
Sources
  • Scaling the Secular City — J.P. Moreland (1987)scholarlyFind on Amazon
  • Reasonable Faith — William Lane Craig (2008 (3rd ed.))scholarlyFind on Amazon
  • I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist — Norman Geisler & Frank Turek (2004)popularFind on Amazon

What scholars debate

Contemporary analytic philosophy has largely returned to correspondence (Alston, Searle) after 20th-century flirtations with deflationism. Continental philosophy retains more skepticism toward truth, though often with unacknowledged correspondence commitments.

Reflection

  • 1.Can you state a relativist claim that is not itself self-refuting?
  • 2.What would the world look like if no statements corresponded or failed to correspond to reality?
  • 3.Where have you heard "your truth / my truth" language? What does the speaker actually mean?

Key sources

Sources
  • Reasonable Faith — William Lane Craig (2008 (3rd ed.))scholarlyFind on Amazon
  • Scaling the Secular City — J.P. Moreland (1987)scholarlyFind on Amazon
  • I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist — Norman Geisler & Frank Turek (2004)popularFind on Amazon

Featured thinkers

J.P. Moreland
Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot

Analytic philosopher who has written on consciousness, substance dualism, naturalism, and Christian epistemology.

Notable: Scaling the Secular City; The Soul
William Lane Craig
Philosopher and theologian (PhD Birmingham, ThD Munich)

A leading contemporary defender of the Kalam cosmological argument and the historicity of the resurrection.

Notable: Reasonable Faith; The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Frank Turek
Apologist, founder of CrossExamined

Popular apologetics speaker focused on moral and cosmological arguments and worldview critique.

Notable: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist; Stealing from God
You finished this lesson
Truth, Knowledge, and Worldview1 / 3
Up next in this module

Pass it on

Share this lesson

One honest argument can change a conversation. Send it to a friend, a skeptic, or your small group.

Want a hi-res image card instead? Build a shareable evidence card sized for X or Instagram Stories.

Related lessons