Relativism

Have you ever heard someone say: "What is true for you is not true for me" or "That is your reality, not mine" ?

Relativism is as rampant as the common cold in our society- but its effects are far more serious. Relativism is symptomatic of a multicultural society. There are many and varied worldviews living in close proximity, and somehow we all have to get on with each other. Relativism is thus adopted as a way of coping with varying claims to reality by others, without allowing those claims to affect our own views. It is born out of a perception that tolerance is the supreme virtue, and that all ideas are equal.  Instead of the equality of all people we have promoted the equality of all ideas. From this it follows that if all ideas are equal then none of them are true, because truth by nature is exclusive. This is no doubt what led Chesterton to this comment:

"Tolerance," the author G.K. Chesterton once said, " is the virtue of those who don't believe anything."

 It is closely allied to Political Correctness. This is not to say that we don't need to respect the person because their worldview appears barely tolerable or even intolerable to us, no, the person is always respected, not because of their worldview, but in spite of their worldview. This is based on the understanding they too are made in the image of God, and also out of a sense of humility. We too are fallible creatures. But to treat ideas as equal is folly. Another offshoot symptom of relativism is that it stultifies dialogue, and the search for truth. If all ideas are equally valid, what need is there to change the others mind? What need of discussion? The real problems start to exhibit the weaknesses of this stance when tolerance becomes a kind of tyranny taking all captive and causing major destruction. It's the sort of tolerance that amounts to no more than a sneering at someone's views without genuinely trying to see why it is they think differently. The people who think they have something valid to contribute are left feeling frustrated and undervalued. Their concerns are not listened to. All of this comes down to fragmentation of society.

One of the cultural symbols of today that epitomizes relativism is the exclamation: "Whatever" replete with the inevitable shrug of the shoulders, hands low, outward facing and palms up. Whatever.

Relativism is a denial of the exclusive nature of truth, and if this problem is not exposed it will undercut any attempts to get anyone to see your point of view even whether your view is based on truth or not. It is, in terms of logic, contravening the laws of non-contradiction. One can construct the most erudite form of logical argument and present an elegantly reasoned defense of a certain view but they might as well not have bothered when the idea of truth is no longer believed in or respected, or even thought a valid category to remonstrate about.

“To give truth to him who loves it not is to only give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation.”

George McDonald

They may listen politely while your gems of truth are breathed out, like droplets of precious clear water, but it's like water running off the slick oily feathers of a duck. Relativism renders people impervious- not only to the exclusive claims of Christ- but it cements people into a retreat akin to a bomb shelter constructed out of their own thinking, which- if never brought to light- will become their tomb.


If that weren't bad enough when one considers the effects of the post-modern attitude towards truth claims it can be seen the bomb-shelter is locked and sealed from the inside. This is because of the almost universal suspicion that any one trying to "push" a particular point, or preach the truth of something, is perceived to be out to get control of ones life, their time or their money- or property or anything that might give them an advantage. It is the overarching suspicion and skepticism that brings up the question: "What does this guy want?"  "Truth" is  thus seen as a means of domination, a way of getting power over others. Absolute truth claims are treated with disdain and incredulity, and those pushing that barrow are "arrogant and ignorant" all at once. "How dare they!" is the felt, if not the expressed view of someone who has deeply imbibed the poison of relativism.

The link above regarding post-modernism is a series of videos on how this affects our culture on the outside and even within different expressions of the church. So this relativistic attitude towards the Christian faith can manifest itself as it has done in the Emergent church (fifth video on this post) where, in its extremes, the only real dogma is that there should be no dogma (doctrine). But this influence is not only expressed by church movements, it expresses itself within individuals within a congregation. The influence of internalizing a relativistic outlook results in agnosticism. "Ah, but how can you know that, it's just your interpretation", goes the familiar refrain. A relativistic outlook tends to reduce all knowledge to mere opinions.

It results in a denial of several things in regard to God. It may express itself in a weak faith. Institutionalized Christians, are perhaps those brought up in the Church and have never seen for themselves just how solid a bedrock is the Christian faith. They believe, but the roots are shallow- "Church is a nice place to be, all my friends are here, my family, it feels good to be here", but these have never sought for themselves to know if Christianity is really true. They believe, but have a shallow reason for their belief. Sometimes the faith is fideistic. Which is really a faith in faith as opposed to an evidence based faith. None of Christs disciples believed because they thought belief was a good thing to do, they believed because the evidences convinced them these things were true. Christ had no hesitation in showing Thomas his scars. Those of shallow faith are often quite ready to believe that other faiths are just as valid and likely to have as much evidence for believing they are true expressions of God as any other faith system. They may see that the value of their faith lies more towards the veneration and upkeep of tradition than worship of the truth. They are taken in the snare of relativism.

The truth of Christianity is resolved in a few broad ideas. God exists. God has spoken. God can make himself understood. He is perfectly knowable (though not exhaustively so). We can communicate this knowledge.

Relativism is, as others have said, an old problem dressed in modern garb. It places doubt on God's ability to make himself known, and on our ability to know God with enough certainty to live by. It also places doubt on the capacity of language to be the medium by which truth is communicable.  It first occurred in the Garden of Eden:

"Yea, hath God really said...?"

It was for no small reason that John's Gospel succinctly, firmly declares: "In the beginning was the Word..."

Relativism is relatively easy to expose and Matt Slick does a good job at ferreting it out of its hidey-holes in his work below, but sometimes a simple word picture is easier to follow than the more formal logic that he has expressed.

One such exercise I have used to effect is this: Suppose two friends have just come out of a store and standing on the verge, prepare to cross a busy street. Like sensible adults they each look both ways. One says "ok it's clear- let's go" but the other grabs her friend and says, "wait- there's a big truck coming!" If you were that other, would you settle for: "Ok, that's your reality but I have my own, you stay on the kerb, I'm going to cross..."??? In an instant anyone can see that they cannot both be right, and that it is a matter of great importance that the truth of the matter be brought to light. That is relativism in a nutshell.

For other examples of relativistic thinking, Ravi Zacharias refers to a genuine 100 million dollar note he carries around in his wallet, go here and watch the sixth video entitled "How would you define biblical absolutes". If you have time watch them all.

Once the silliness of thinking that both people are right- and that they can each take their own individual course of action with equal impunity is seen for what it is, then we can address the problem on another level. The next thing to do then, is to expose the intellectual hypocrisy of a relativistic stance when it comes to other more abstract forms of truth. The question must be asked: just because I can see the truck with my eyes, does that mean that realities I cannot see are less real and therefore are less critical? I believe it was C.S. Lewis who said: "If life is a game, then it is a game that can be lost"

On the existential level of a footpath and a busy street it is easy to see foolishness, but why do we treat philosophical and religious truth so differently?

The same rules of non-contradiction apply. But the stakes are just as high, in fact- higher.

The following are words of wisdom taken from Monergism Books and the website of Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry:

"We use logic and the facts and history presented in the gospel when discussing Christianity with others because God created this world and Christianity is logical, consistent and historical. It makes the MOST sense of the world we live in. But men are depraved and are blinded to the truth that is RIGHT before them. They cannot and WILL NOT see it. Even when a syllogism* is put before them, their emotional and moral hatred for the truth triumphs over the facts. People want what their heart wants. The problem is not that people do not have enough data, it is that they WILL NOT see it. This is the sad condition mankind finds itself, of which I am a part. I am not morally superior to atheists and in fact they may have many good moral qualities I lack. The problem is that, apart from grace, man is a slave and he has Stockholm syndrome**: He defends his slave master. But my words will not even scratch the surface of people's heart unless God is merciful in spite of their rebellion to open their heart. All who believe that Jesus is the Christ are forgiven. The Spirit of God has to show them this using our words expressing the facts of the gospel that we preach. All people already know the truth of the facts, but suppress it until God takes the heart of stone and tuns it to a heart of flesh (Ezek 36.26)"

*[A syllogism is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two or more others (the premises) of a specific form.] 

**[Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them, and sometimes the feeling of love for the captor shows.]

"If a person says that truth and morality are relative to the individual, then how can he use the concept of good to show that God is absolutely wrong in permitting evil? In the case of the World Trade Center atrocity, the only thing a consistent relativist can say dispassionately is that relative to the terrorists, it was a good thing. Relative to us, it is a bad thing. Short answer: "Sir, do you believe that truth and morality, good and evil, are relative to the individual?" "Then why are you asking the question?" - Roger Smalling, D.Min

http://cdn.www.carm.org/sites/default/files/carm_logo.png

RELATIVISM

by Matt Slick

Relativism is perhaps the easiest of all positions to refute. When someone states that all truth is relative or that there are no absolute truths, then it is a simple matter of demonstrating the illogic of their position. These short replies to their statements are just what you need.

Following are some statements made by those in relativism. Find one that fits, copy and paste the reply into a window and see what they say.

1. "All truth is relative"
   If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false. 
2. "There are no absolute truths"
   The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false.
   If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism. 
3.  "What is true for you is not true for me"
   If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?
   If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. If you say yes, then relativism is false.
   If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then I am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false. If that is true, then how can relativism be true?
   If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither?
   If it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism (within me) holds the position that relativism is false. This is self-contradictory and can't be true.
   If it is false for me that relativism is false, then relativism isn't true because what is true for me is not said to be true for me.
   If you say that what is true for me is neither really true or false, then relativism isn't true since it states that all views are equally valid and by not being, at least true, relativism is shown to be wrong.
   If I believe that relativism is false, and if it is true only for me that it is false, then you must admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing that relativism false.
   If you admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing relativism is false, then relativism is defeated since you admit there is something absolutely true.
   If I am believing in something other than relativism that is true, then there is something other than relativism that is true - even if it is only for me.
   If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false.
4. "No one can know anything for sure"
   If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure which is self defeating.
5. "That is your reality, not mine"
   Is my reality really real or not? If it is, then my reality states that relativism is false. If my reality is not true, then relativism isn't true either since it states that my reality is true.
   If my reality is different than yours, how can my reality contradict your reality? If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time -- especially since reality is that which is true?
6. "We all perceive what we want"
   If we all perceive what we want, then how do you know that statement is true since I can want to perceive that your statement is false?
   If we all perceive what we want, then what are you wanting to perceive?
   If you say you want to perceive truth, how do you know if you are not deceived? Simply desiring truth is no proof you have it.
7. "You may not use logic to refute relativism"
   Why may I not use logic to refute relativism? Do you have a logical reason for your statement? If not, then you aren't being logical. If you do, then you are using logic to refute logic and that can't happen.
   Can you give me a logical reason why logic cannot be used?
   If you use relativism to refute logic, then on what basis is relativism (that nothing is absolutely true) able to refute logic which is based upon truth since you must assume relativism is absolutely true to be able to refute logic.
   If you use relativism to refute logic, then relativism has lost its relative status since it is used to absolutely refute the truth of something else.
8. "We are only perceiving different aspects of the same reality"
   If our perceptions of reality are contradictory, can either perception be trusted?
   Is truth self contradictory? If it were, then truth wouldn't be true because it would be self refuting. If something is self refuting, then it isn't true.
   If that is true that we are perceiving different aspects of the same reality, then am I believing something that is false since I believe that your reality is not true? How then could they be the same reality?
   If you are saying that it is merely my perception that is not true, then relativism is refuted. If I am believing something that is false, then relativism is not true since it holds that all views are equally valid.
   If my reality is that your reality is false, then both cannot be true. If both are not true, then one of us (or both) is in error. If one or both of us is in error, then relativism is not true.
9. "Relativism itself is excluded from the critique that it is absolute and self-refuting"
   On what basis do you simply exclude relativism from the critique of logic? Is this an arbitrary act? If so, does it justify your position? If it is not arbitrary, what criteria did you use to exclude it?
   To exclude itself from the start is an admission of the logical problems inherent in its system of thought.