Thursday, October 15, 2026

There's No Such Thing as "True for You, but False for Me"

Image result for johnpiippo monroe county community
(Monroe County Community College)

 I taught Logic for seventeen years at Monroe County Community College. I used Hurley's Logic for ten years. Then, I switched to Lewis Vaughn's The Power of Critical Thinking: Effective Reasoning About Ordinary and Extraordinary Claims. 

In the first class session I presented a claim that is logical, but seems extraordinary to many students, because, unbeknownst to them, they are subjective relativists. They think that truth is relative to persons. That some things are "true for you, but not for me." 

That is absurd. I explain it like this, and, as I do, I have the sense I am stepping on some of our relativistic culture's most cherished beliefs.

Here we go!

Logic is about evaluating and formulating arguments.

An argument is a series of sentences that are statements.

A statement (also called a "proposition") is a sentence that describes a certain (as Vaughn puts it) "state of affairs." A statement makes a claim that a certain state of affairs obtains. Another way to put it is like this: a statement is a sentence that is either true or false. 

For example, consider the statement The lights in this room are on. This statement describes a certain state of affairs; viz., the lights in this room now being on. Now here comes the subjective-relativist crusher. If this statement is true (that is, if the state of affairs of the lights now being on obtains), then it is true for everybody. And if it is false, then it is false for everybody.

Consider the statement God exists. If that statement is true, it is true for everybody, even for persons who think it is false. And if that statement is false, then it is false for everybody, even for people who "know" there is a God.

But what about these statements? 

It's true for me that Pepsi is better than Coke. But it's true for you that Coke is better than Pepsi? 

Here the words It's true for me are redundant, unnecessary. At most, they mean I believe, or I think. Such as: I think Pepsi is better than Coke. 

Now note this: If that statement is true, then it is true for everybody. And we have this state of affairs: John likes Pepsi better than Coke.

 Consider this statement: God told John, and no one else, that he is to start a ministry to the homeless. Isn't that statement just for John and not for everyone? Yes. Of course. But watch this: the truth of that statement is for everyone. That is, it is true for everyone that God told John individually, and no one else, that he is to start a ministry to the homeless.

What a person believes is irrelevant to the truth of their belief. Otherwise we would have the idea that believing something makes that state of affairs true. And then,  we'd all be infallible, which is absurd. In that case, if I believe I can flap my arms and fly, then I can flap my arms and fly. But it is false that I can flap my arms, vigorously, and ascend into the heavens. Even if I believe I can do this! 

The point here is: Beliefs do not make a state of affairs true. If that were the case, then I'm going to try this: I believe I am the world's strongest, wealthiest, most interesting man. But that is false on three counts. 

Beliefs are statements that are either true or false and - watch closely now - if a belief is true, it is true for everyone, whether they know it or not, or whether they believe otherwise.

 Take this statement: There are an even number of stars in the universe. That's either true or false. What we believe about it is irrelevant to its truth or falsity, since believing something does not make it true. 

Now the truth or falsity of this statement cannot be known. But even though we can't know if it's true or false, it is either true or false. And if it is true, then it is true for everyone (because believing it to be either true or false is irrelevant to the actual state of affairs).

Therefore, a statement cannot be "true for you, but false for me." I might believe that a certain statement is true, while you might think it to be false. But a statement in itself is either true or false, and if true, it's true for everyone, whether they realize it or not.

Thus, someone who says Truth depends on the individual's perspective utters something incoherent. Anyone who thinks that truth is relative to individuals lives in a world of logical absurdity. The antidote to such a misconception is to show them that their statement (Truth depends on the individual's perspective) cannot be true, because it makes a truth claim that is for everyone. That is, it is self-refuting, hence logically incoherent.

 ***
Three of my books are:


Posted by at

Wednesday, October 14, 2026

Eight Reasons to Believe that God Exists


      (Grand Haven, Michigan)

 A long, long time ago Bill Craig (aka William Lane Craig) was one of my campus pastors at Northern Illinois University, where I did my undergraduate degree in philosophy. I was honored to sing a song I wrote for them, in Bill and Jan's wedding. 


We were always talking about our faith, the existence of God, apologetics, metaethics, philosophical anthropology, and much more. It all got inside me, and has never left, but has been tended and watered and nurtured over the decades.

Here is Bill's essay in Philosophy Today where he gives eight reasons to believe God exists ("Does God Exist?"). Read the essay for the reasoning. 

They are:



  1. God is the best explanation for why anything at all exists.
  2. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
  3. God is the best explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world.
  4. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
  5. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
  6. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.
  7. The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists.
  8. God can be personally known and experienced.

(If #7 confuses you, it's the modal version of the Ontological Argument for God's Existence.)
Posted by at

Tuesday, October 13, 2026

 

The Real Strength of a Church

Image result for john piippo pear
(Pear tree, in my neighbor's back yard.)

You could be part of a large church that is spiritually fruit-bearing.

You could be part of a small church that is spiritually fruit-bearing.

You could be one Jesus-follower that God uses to change culture.

When it comes to world-changing, size does not matter.

This is important to know, since Americans measure success metrically. Churches - small or large - that have conformed to American culture do the same. 

The American success questions are:

How big is your building?

How many attend on Sunday mornings?

How large is your budget?

Many pastors evaluate their ministry metrically. At times, I've succumbed to that, too.

Metrics do not indicate the real strength of a church. Remember the early church. No buildings. Small group meetings in homes. Virtually no budget. Little infrastructure to maintain. Non-programmatic. Costs no money to be a disciple. A band of praying people who have learned to abide in Christ. Think, for example, of the church, today, in China.

In John 14-16 Jesus tells his disciples that the key to his ministry is that he is in the Father, and the Father is in him. He instructs them to live in him. To abide, to dwell, to "remain" (Greek meno) in him. To be like a branch that is constantly attached to Jesus, the Vine. Then, and only then, will they "bear much fruit."

The indicator of church strength is its fruit-bearing capacity.

Disconnected branches bear no fruit. (Jesus says this.)

The real strength of a church is its connected branches. 

My task, as a pastor, is to equip God's people for the works of ministry. The beginning of this is helping people get connected. Without that, bad things happen (no real fruit). Jesus says, "Toss those branches into the bonfire."

Pastors - would you rather have a small group of connected branches, or a pile of disconnected people? Maybe just twelve? Twelve connected branches could change the world, right? They could change your community.
Posted by at

Friday, October 09, 2026

Conflict Reveals Character

(Downtown Monroe)

 I've always thought that who a person really is, is who they are in their home. This is because a home is made of people living under the same roof who are not normal like you. The people in your home, whether old or young, are different. We see who you really are by the way you handle "different."

 Differences can attract - that's good. Maybe that's why you married the person you did. She had something you did not have, and maybe you thought she would complete you. 

 Differences can also collide. Differences can repel, like positive and negative magnetic poles. Differences conflict. A husband and wife are, in a few ways at least, polar opposites. Husbands and wives conflict, at times. There are no exceptions to this. Many are in denial, or fearful, about this.
From God's perspective, this is very good. Differences can complement. In Genesis we read, "And God created polar opposites, and saw that it was good." And, BTW, God is different from you. God's ways are not your ways. That fact is a transcendent good which we minimally grasp.

 Conflict, therefore, is inevitable. Conflict is normal. If there's no conflict in your home, you have a problem. Probably, that problem is you. Or, at least, you are part of the problem. Always consider this possibility, for it reorients you on the road to being a peacemaker.

 James van Yperen, in Making Peace, writes:

 "Conflict reveals the true character of a leader. Jesus told His disciples, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven…. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?” (Matthew 5:43-46). Who we are is revealed by how we react to persecution." (p. 26)

 If differences irritate you, that is your problem. If different approaches and styles "push your buttons," those buttons are yours. Own up to this and you are on your way to character formation.

 ***
My books are:

The Great Invasion: 31 Days of Christmas
Posted by at

Wednesday, October 07, 2026

FORGIVENESS: Some Resources

 

 


(Leading the Presence-Driven Church students, Faith Bible Seminary, NYC)


(I'm re-posting this to keep it in play.)


A QUIZ

Which one is the road to freedom?

a. to forgive

b. to nurture an offense


Linda and I are always talking with people about forgiveness. Here are  links to things I have written about forgiveness.

We all need it, and need to learn it, and practice it. 

For Jesus-followers, this is the heart and soul of the Gospel. 

I bless you all with hearts of forgiveness!


Why Is Self-forgiveness Harder than Forgiving Others?
















***
For empirical research on the benefits and power of forgiveness, see Robert Enright's International Forgiveness Institute.

BOOKS







David Augsburger, Caring Enough to Forgive

Posted by at

Tuesday, October 06, 2026

Help for Worrying

 

 

(Cancun sunrise)

I still worry too much. My worry comes from losing spiritual focus. 

I can mentally acknowledge that God is with me. But there are times when this truth does not capture my heart. At that point, I am susceptible to worry.  

Here are things that combat worry.


  • Spending solitary praying time with God. This restores my heart to its proper place. In His presence, my agitated soul finds rest.
  • Being in community with my brothers and sisters. Authentic Christian community absorbs worry. (Thank God for the small groups Linda and I have been in over the years!)
  • Reading Scripture and meditating on it. Scripture escorts my heart into His presence. 
  • Listening to experienced Jesus-followers, and learning from them. Many of my mentors and spiritual counselors have dispensed wisdom that has defeated worry.
  • Remembering how God has been with me.
  • Counting my blessings. (I often carry a list of them, looking at them, and giving thanks to God for them.)
  • Organizing and doing. Taking action, where I am able and available. 
  • Walking in obedience. Living righteously secures my attachment to Jesus.
  • Worshiping. When my soul sings, worry flees.

Doing these things recapture my heart.
My renewed heart experiences God with me,
working through me,
assuring me that I am not alone,
and that He is with me.


***
My Books

Posted by at

Monday, October 05, 2026

Dysfunctional characteristics of toxic leaders


(Rift Valley, Kenya)

When I was in Kenya doing a pastors conference I spent a day with a friend who was a PhD student doing research on African political leaders. One book he recommended to me was The Allure of Toxic Leaders, by  Jean Lipman-Blumen.

Here are Lipman-Blumen's... Dysfunctional characteristics of toxic leaders.

• Lack of integrity that marks the leader as cynical, corrupt, hypocritical, or untrustworthy

• Insatiable ambition that prompts leaders to put their own sustained power, glory, and fortunes above their followers’ well-being

• Enormous egos that blind leaders to the shortcomings of their own character and thus limit their capacity for self-renewal

• Arrogance that prevents acknowledging their mistakes and, instead, leads to blaming others

• Amorality that makes it near impossible for them to discern right from wrong

• Avarice that drives leaders to put money and what money can buy at the top of the list

• Reckless disregard for the costs of their actions to others as well as to themselves

• Cowardice that leads them to shrink from the difficult choices

• Failure both to understand the nature of relevant problems and to act competently and effectively in leadership situations

Posted by at

My Christmas Devotional Book

 


This is a 31-day devotional book, based on the life of Jesus.


The book's thesis is: the more we know about Jesus, the greater our worship of Him will be.

This book offers a deep dive into the story of Jesus.


Thirty-one days that will enrich the Christmas season!

Posted by at

Non-Discursive Experiences of God


                                                    (Lake Erie, a few miles from our house.)

Howard Thurman writes:

"The central fact in religious experience is the awareness of meeting God. The descriptive words used are varied: sometimes it is called an encounter; sometimes, a confrontation; and sometimes, a sense of Presence. What is insisted on, however, without regard to the term used, is that in the experience defined as religious, the individual is seen as exposed to direct knowledge of ultimate meaning, ne plus ultra being, in which all that the individual is, becomes clear as immediate and often distinct revelation. He is face to face with something that is so much more, and so much more inclusive, than all of his awareness of himself that for him, in the moment, there are no questions. Without asking, somehow he knows." (Howard Thurman: Essential Writings, pp. 38-39)

Thurman is describing the quality of what I refer to as non-discursive experiences.

A non-discursive experience is an experience that is felt and "known" as real, but which cannot be captured in the steel nets of literal language. One has such experiences, but cannot discourse about them. (On religious experiences that "I know that I know that I know" but cannot speak of, see James K.A. Smith, Thinking in Tongues.)

 I experience God in a variety of ways, many of which are non-discursive. This is how it should be, right? None of us has epistemic access to the being of God. We fail to fully understand what it's like to be all-knowing, or all-loving, or all-powerful.

 The expression of a non-discursive experience is confessional and testimonial. There is a sense in which it cannot be refuted. What does this mean? Say, for example, that I now feel joy. I make the statement, “Now I feel joy.” It would be odd, in a Wittgensteinian-kind of way, for someone to say “You’re wrong.” That would be leaving the language-game I’m now playing. (Wittgensteinian “playing” is what I have here in mind.)

 Consider the statement, “I felt God close to me today.” Even a philosophical materialist could not doubt that today I had some kind of numinous experience which I describe as God being with me. They could doubt that what caused my experience was “God.” I understand this. But their doubt has no effect on my experience and the interpretation of it. Their doubt does not make me a doubter, precisely because I am not a philosophical materialist. I see no reason to disbelieve my experiences because others do not have them. This relates, I think, to Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne's "principle of credulity."

 At this point I’m influenced by theistic philosophers Alvin Plantinga and William P. Alston. For them, belief in God is properly basic if the noetic framework of Christian theism is true. Plantinga’s work on “warranted belief” and Alston’s work on the “experiential basis of theism” is helpful here. Alston writes: 

 “the relatively abstract belief that God exists is constitutive of the doxastic practice of forming particular beliefs about God's presence and activity in our lives on the basis of theistic experience.” 

 For Alston, experiential support for theism is analogous to experiential support for belief in the physical world. He explains what he means by “theistic experience.” He writes:

 I “mean it to range over all experiences that are taken by the experiencer to be an awareness of God (where God is thought of theistically). I impose no restrictions on its phenomenal quality. It could be a rapturous loss of conscious self-identity in the mystical unity with God; it could involve "visions and voices"; it could be an awareness of God through the experience of nature, the words of the Bible, or the interaction with other persons; it could be a background sense of the presence of God, sustaining one in one's ongoing activities. Thus the category is demarcated by what cognitive significance the subject takes it to have, rather than by any distinctive phenomenal feel.”

 For Plantinga, if the noetic framework of Christian theism is true, then I can expect to experience God. God exists, has made us in his image, has placed a moral consciousness within us, has revealed himself in the creation, and desires for us to know him. Plantinga, of course, believes this noetic framework is true. As do I. One then expects experiential encounters with God. They come to us, as Alston says, like sense-experiences.

 This is to argue for the rationality of theistic experiences. One can have “warrant” for the belief that such experiences are from God. But these experiences do not function as “proofs” of God’s existence.

 Non-discursive experiences, and experiences in general, cannot be caught in the steel nets of literal language. “Experience” qua experience has what French philosopher Paul Ricoeur has called a “surplus of meaning.” “Words” never capture all of experience. All experiencing has a non-discursive quality. Here the relationship of words to experiencing leads to volumes of discussion in areas such as linguistic semantics and philosophy of language.

 Even a sentence as seemingly simple as “I see a tree” is, phenomenally, incomplete. Consider this experience: sitting on an ocean beach watching the sun set with the person you are falling in love with. Ricoeur called such experiences “limit-experiences”; viz., experiences that arise outside the limits of thought and language. But people want to express, in words, these events. For that, Ricoeur says a “limit-language” is needed, such as metaphorical expression. So-called “literal language” cannot capture limit-experiences.

Every person has limit-experiences that are non-discursive.

Experience, not theory, breeds conviction. Theorizing either for or against God is not as convincing as the sense of the presence of God or the sense of the absence of God. This is why I keep returning to my “conversion experience.”

 Among the God-experiences I consistently have are:
- A sense that God is with me
- Numinous experiences of awe and wonder (not mere “Einsteinian wonder”)
- God speaking to me
- God leading me
- God comforting me
- God’s love expressed towards me
- God’s Spirit convicting me
- God directing me
- Overwhelming experience of God
- God revealing more of himself to me

 These experiences are mediated through:
-Corporate worship
-Individuals
-Solitary times of prayer
-Study of the Christian scriptures
-Observing the creation
-In difficult and testing situations

Sometimes I have experienced God in an unmediated way.

 I discern and judge such things to be experiences of God because...
-I spend many hours a week praying
-I have heavily invested myself in prayer and meditation for the past 42+ years
-I saturate myself in the Christian scriptures
-I study the history of Christian spirituality
-I keep a spiritual journal and have 3000+ pages of journal entries concerning God-experiences
-I hang out with people who do all of the above
- I've taught this material in various seminaries, at conferences, in the United States & elsewhere around the world. I've gained a multi-ethnic perspective on the subject of experiencing God.

 All this increases one’s diacritical ability (dia-krisis; “discernment”; lit. “to cut through”). Spiritual diacritical ability is mostly acquired. It is in direct proportion to familiarity.

 The more we live in connection with God, the more familiar we will be with the presence of God. We will speak of it, and our words will fall short of expressing it, which is how it should be.

***

My books are:

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)