So here is a question: If one Christian has a huge amount of faith, and one Christian has only a little bit of faith, which is more likely to go to heaven? The post modernist would say that the more faith you have, the stronger your belief, the more likely you will be saved. The proper answer however should be that it doesn’t matter how much faith a person has, what matters is what their faith is in. If Christianity isn’t real then neither person will be saved, no matter how much faith they have. If Christianity is real then it doesn’t matter if your faith is weak, so long as you have put your faith where it should be.
The difference in thinking marks the difference in how the post modern generation views truth. According to the postmodern generation, each individual person is responsible for coming up with his own philosophy, law, and meaning for life, and each person’s self sculpted truth is equally respected as being valid. Post modernism completely bypasses the idea that there is one ultimate transcending truth, and thus the idea of many individuals each having equally valid contradictory truths does not defy the meaning of truth.
The only self truth which is forbidden is a truth which states “my truth is exclusive.” The statement “if my truth is right, then anything contradicting it is wrong,” might make sense logically, and yet postmodernists forbid this truth from being held. Your truth might be right for you, but it might equally be wrong for someone else, because your truth is based on you, not on a transcendent reality. Therein lies the problem with the modern definition of truth. Apart from those truths proven by science, no truth may be believed to be transcendent.
So what is the problem with this modern thinking? If most normal people look at the world around them, they are going to come up with similar self truths as others doing the same. If everyone respects each others truths as being equally valid then there could be peace on earth. Each individual would live his own life according to his own philosophy, and there would be no argument, no conflict, no problem.
If life consisted of sitting at a round table debating philosophy, then it is true that there would be no conflict. Each person would be very happy with his own chosen truth, and would have no problem with anyone else’s. However problems come up when two people’s self truths intersect during day to day life. When ones persons truth is “I can take whatever I want,” and another persons truth “I can keep whatever I want,” then when the first person comes across the second persons beautiful new Nissan 350Z, then they are going to have problems deciding who gets it. You say “well everyone’s truth should include a respect for each other and each other’s property.” Are you daring to propose a transcendent truth which I must conform to? Where did you come up with that truth? What makes you think you can force it upon me?
Deep down, everyone knows that all truth is transcendant. They know that on earth there is an order for things. There is a proper behavior that is expected of others, and a proper behavior that is expected of you. Much of this transcendent truth is accepted by modern man as being true (although they might not accept that it is transcendent.) So if transcendent truths are accepted by each man to be self truth, then what is the problem? The problem is that not all transcendent truths are accepted by all men. Some truths are rejected because of the inconvenience or guilt which they would place upon the holders. In addition, some make up their own truths which contradict transcendent truth, such as “I might take my neighbors Nissan 350Z out for a turn whenever I desire thus.” The unfortunate neighbor holds to the transcendent truth (as does most everyone) that my property can’t be messed with by anyone else except if i give permission, and so the “two” truths butt heads.
So lets concede that there is a set of transcendent truths which all men must conform to. A good question might be “well how do we know what these truths are?” Well here is what inspired the whole postmodern perspective in the first place. Modernists (prepostmodernists) decided that each truth must be examined by science for a determination. Ultimate truth was determinable if enough study was done. However not all truth is contained within the realm of science, so science could not come up with very good answers concerning nonscientific truths. Science quickly verifies truths such as gravity. However science is not so black and white on issues like abortion, marriage faithfulness, drugs, homosexuality, child rearing, and other moral issues. Since modernists had set science up as the determiner of transcendent truths, then these issues were determined to be unknowable. On issues in which science does not rule black and white it was decided that there is no transcendent truth. Each man must form his own opinion.
Now on the surface this might not seem like that bad a concept. On issues which are not known for certain then each person must have his own conviction. What is wrong, however, is the postmodern belief that each mans conviction is equally true. What has been forgotten is the idea that even though we might not be certain as to what the transcendent reality is, there is still a transcendent reality out there. Some who believe one thing are in accordance with that reality, while others who believe something else are in fact wrong.
So The thing that’s wrong with the postmodern definition of truth is the belief that “truth is the conviction of an individual.” This goes all the way back to what I was saying in the beginning. The modern belief is that if you hold a conviction then that conviction is “your truth.” The stronger you hold that conviction, the truer that thing is for you. What is forgotten is that there is a transcendent truth which holds each individuals “truth” accountable. An individual’s convictions are not truth unless they match transcendent reality.
The question then is “who determined transcendent truth?” Christians believe that when God created the world he created a transcendent truth which all men know in their hearts, although they may fight against it. There are many other religions which define truth differently then Christianity. Some believe that we can only know truth through science and that science gives no evidence that there is anything beyond this world. The fact remains though, that at the end of the day, when each of us die, or this world ends, there is one truth which will consume us all. Either we will be annihilated, or we will be judged by the Christian’s God, or we will be re-incarnated in a new body here on earth, or we will become gods ruling our own kingdoms in space. Whatever the one transcendent truth may be, it will be applied to Hindus, atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Mormons, and “just do gooders” alike, no matter how firmly they held their belief.
This is scary! This casts us into a state of chaos, never knowing for sure what will happen in the end! It doesn’t have to. What it ought to do is press on each one of us the importance of seeking out the truth. There is a truth out there and many believe it can be found. This is another reason why I think starting a study concerning the evidences for Christianity would be so good. The historical, scientific, philosophical evidence for Christianity is out there, waiting for us to find. Do I know that it is the transcendent truth reigning the universe? I have faith, based on all the evidence I have seen, to commit myself to Christianity. In the end all will be proven.
Yay, this is the longest post ever ever ever ever ever!
Ravi Zacharias gives a very good explanation as to why he is not an atheist. It is available in two parts that you can listen to online for free. I especially liked his explanation as to the three levels of philosophical discussion that he gives at the beginning of the first part. That will be really helpful for future discussions. Also his two quotes at the end of the second part are incredibly poignant. Each one is only like 20 minutes, so you can definitely listen to both in one sitting. Check it out. Here is a link to 
Here is an example. You are walking through the woods and you come to a bridge which crosses a river. You have no idea if it will support you, and no one else is walking accross it, so the bridge is unproven. You walk up to it and check out how solidly it is constructed. You see what its made out of and what kind of foundation it has. Someone walking by tells you that the bridge is good, though he walks off without crossing it. You are examining the evidence. Faith is exibited when you decide that based on the evidence, you are willing to trust yourself to that bridge and you walk accross it.
Evidence such as “this person told me it was true” and “I experienced this amazing thing” are good for some people, but are not respected by the scientific, historic, and philosophic communities. Because the majority of evidence provided by people is like this, then these communities think that this is the only evidence for Christianity, and so they write Christianity off as a hoax. They believe that Christians faith is based on faulty evidence. What needs to be shown to these communities are the other types of evidences that support Christianity. The historical, logical, and scientific arguments for Christianity are many. When examined from this perspective Christianity provides plenty of evidence for those scientifically, historically, and philosophically minded to be convinced.