Anchored: Finding Objective Truth in a World of Subjective Noise

Can we know what’s objectively true?

This is a question on my mind and heart because the Internet has devolved into a giant mess of opposing realities - that if you don’t stop and try to really understand - can leave you asking, “Which story is the real one?”

I’m not just talking about misinformation, rage bait, mainstream media vs social media, conspiracy theories, deepfake lookalikes, glossed over pretend internet moguls, or subjective algorithms… though all those things swirl around every single one of us daily.

Are we (me, you) anchored to something that’s unchangingly and objectively TRUE?

Julie ages 6 - 32 would have confidently answered yes. She was anchored to the truth, and knew the ins and outs of her worldview appropriate to the age she was.

Julie ages 32 - 44 undid all of it.

If you’ve never experienced existential angst, I pray you don’t. It’s one of the most terrifying and unrelenting experiences I’ve ever gone through in my life, and during that time I could not find an anchor anywhere.

It wasn’t just one or two nights. It was nonstop for years. I’m actually starting to wonder if my nervous system issues today weren’t just from life crisis and burnout, but from this constant state of terror about the fate of my soul and the meaning of life.

When I couldn’t trust my own emotions or thoughts, I went searching for answers from people who’ve wrestled intellectually with this exact question. Because the truth- if it exists objectively- has implications not just spiritually, but logically and philosophically, too.

What exactly is truth?

Truth is that which corresponds to reality, is consistent regardless of perception or belief, and remains constant independent of opinion, interpretation, or circumstance.

Philosophers and scholars¹ often approach this question through logical frameworks². Two of the most compelling arguments used to explore objective truth- and specifically the existence of God or an ultimate anchor for truth- are:

1. The Moral Argument

2. The Cosmological Argument

The Moral Argument

This argument appeals to our innate sense of right and wrong, good and evil. Scholars reason that since we all intuitively recognize certain moral truths- like the existence of justice or the intrinsic worth of human life- there must be an objective standard or source from which these truths derive.

If you deconstruct your way down to the idea that morality is separate from the existence of God, you end up in an argument that goes something like this… “Moral right and wrong was an evolutionary concept human beings developed so we could live in communities and survive.”

This argument doesn’t work all that well however because in many cases, survival includes things like lying, stealing, murder, etc. What about rape? If the species is about to go extinct because women refuse to have sex, then raping women to propagate the species is the moral right thing to do.

Also, what about moral progress? Over time we’ve seen (societally) better treatment of women, abolishment of slavery, protection of children. This march towards “better morality” suggests we’re headed towards an objective standard.

Ultimately, it becomes difficult to defend morality as merely an evolutionary adaptation for survival. Instead, it points strongly toward some objective truth or unchanging being from which our collective sense of moral obligation originates.

The Cosmological Argument

This argument focuses on the existence of the universe itself. The logic goes something like this: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist (as science strongly suggests³). Therefore, the universe must have a cause outside of itself- something uncreated, eternal, powerful enough to set the cosmos in motion.

If you go toe to toe with an atheist on this one, they might say something like “Just because the universe had a beginning doesn't mean it needed a god to start it. Maybe the universe began from something natural that we don't fully understand yet.”

However, if things could truly pop into existence from nothing, why don't we ever observe this happening anywhere else? Even if we say a "natural" cause created the universe, what explains the existence and fine-tuning of that natural cause itself?

This is why… even in the worst of my existential dread, I still held onto the idea that God existed. This truth never really left me, but that was part of the issue.

If I *knew* that God existed, then that meant I had to understand God in order to know that I was going to end up somewhere okay after death. And that’s where I swam in dark horrible waters for more than a decade.

So back to the Internet and it’s overwhelming amount of slop and subjectivity.

I believe there is an objective reality that we can know and a Creator who started this whole thing. There is a way to find and know what’s true, not just with the news, but with ideas as well.

Disclaimer: Just because there is an objective reality, doesn’t mean one person can always hold the entirety of it. This is why humility and wisdom are such powerful virtues. They are the way in which you recognize you might not see the whole picture.

Let’s tackle something really polarizing and divisive right now. The war between Israel and Gaza.

Depending on your news sources, friends, social media feeds, or even your own heritage, you'll find entirely different stories. One narrative describes Israel as a nation defending itself from terrorism, another portrays Palestinians suffering deep injustice and oppression. Both sides speak with passionate conviction, supported by facts, images, and history they consider irrefutable.

Is there a way to know what’s objectively true? Or even just a part of the whole truth?

I believe the answer is yes.

How do we practically do this?

• First, we identify facts that are verifiable and independently confirmed.

• Second, we assess sources and evidence carefully, looking for consistency, reliability, and transparency.

• Third, we intentionally listen to multiple perspectives, even those we instinctively disagree with, to understand the broader context.

With the Israel-Gaza conflict as an example, we can know objective facts like:

• Specific dates and locations of events.

• The exact words stated by political leaders (via recordings, verified transcripts).

• Verified historical context that both sides acknowledge (for instance, agreed-upon past conflicts, treaties, or ceasefires).

By starting with facts that both sides can agree on, we create a common ground. This common ground doesn't immediately solve every conflict, but it does help anchor us in reality rather than emotional reactions or propaganda.

Intellectual discipline is a lost art.

The algorithm favors emotion and rage bait. Because of this, 90% of what you read online is pandering to a different value (the algorithmic value) and it’s easy to let yourself get carried away by ideologies and stories that are not based on the truth.

To resist this pull toward emotional manipulation and misinformation, we must intentionally anchor ourselves in what can be known and verified… facts grounded in reality rather than emotion or ideology.

This is essentially where and how I ended up when coming back to my faith. I needed to find the ground I KNEW I could stand on.

• God exists.

• Jesus was a verifiable Jewish man living in 1st century Israel.

• He died and was raised to life three days later⁴

The Church I left in 2013 is not the one I am coming back to today.

I meant “Church” in the sense of Christianity as a movement. 11 years out of it and a lot has happened. I feel a strong intuition to continue to stay out of the Church right now, as I fear getting carried away by the bickering and drama I see.

I’m too fragile to re-enter right now honestly, and I think this is honestly what God wants from me. But I do miss speaking to people about these matters, and know I can’t stay in a vacuum forever.

The ability to know what’s objectively true is not something I take for granted anymore.

It’s only because I lived without an anchor that I can sit in the gratitude and peace that comes with understanding and certainty.

The amount of things that have gone from feeling foggy to clear, with just three solid certain truths re-embedded into my spirit, is absolutely wild.

And I know that I am only holding a tiny fraction of objective reality in my heart. But that’s the funny thing with truth. You lose your appetite for anything less, even if that means shedding your ego or your need to be right.

-Julie

1. The word "scholar" here is intentionally used to highlight intellectual rigor, an approach to knowledge that emphasizes careful reasoning, disciplined thought, openness to correction, and respect for evidence. Unfortunately, much of today’s online discourse lacks this intellectual discipline, leading to widespread misinformation, reactive arguing, and polarization.

2. Logical frameworks - Logical frameworks are structured ways of reasoning used by philosophers, theologians, and scholars to analyze and assess claims objectively. These frameworks rely on clear premises, coherent arguments, and rational conclusions to evaluate whether certain beliefs or statements correspond to reality.

3. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose demonstrated through their research that, according to General Relativity, space and time themselves began at a finite point in the past (the Big Bang). See: Hawking, S., & Penrose, R. (1970). The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 314(1519), 529-548.

4. For the sake of this article, I didn’t have the time nor the mental energy to explain how I arrived at this, but it was much through a similar thought process as described in this article.