What Is Truth? The Correspondence Theory and Its Rivals
When we say a statement is "true," what exactly do we mean?
How to use this guide
This guide is built for a 45-60 minute small-group conversation about "What Is Truth? The Correspondence Theory and Its Rivals." Open with prayer, read the framing aloud, and use the questions below to surface what people actually think before you walk through the case. Aim for honest engagement over consensus.
Facilitator tips
- Read the lesson before the meeting; you do not need to be an expert, just a guide.
- Resist the urge to fill silence. The best discussions follow long pauses.
- When someone raises an objection you cannot answer, write it down and follow up next week.
- Close with a single takeaway from each member, not a doctrinal summary.
What we're studying
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 case in brief
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.
What if someone says...
"Coherence is how we actually verify truth in practice."
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.
"Strict relativism may be incoherent, but a softer pluralism avoids the problem."
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).
Discussion questions
- Can you state a relativist claim that is not itself self-refuting?
- What would the world look like if no statements corresponded or failed to correspond to reality?
- Where have you heard "your truth / my truth" language? What does the speaker actually mean?
- [Small group] Where in your own life does this question feel most pressing?
- [Small group] Who do you know that wrestles with this — and how could you talk with them about it this week?
Going deeper
- Reasonable FaithWilliam Lane Craig · 2008 (3rd ed.) · Natural theology
- Scaling the Secular CityJ.P. Moreland · 1987 · Philosophy of religion
- I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an AtheistNorman Geisler & Frank Turek · 2004 · Worldview