Deflating Relativist Slogans

1991 the Barna Research Group found 66 percent of American adults didn’t believe absolute truth exists. Specifically, the agreed that there is “no such thing as absolute truth; two people could define truth in totally conflicting ways, but both could still be correct.” Even more disturbing about Barna’s findings was that half of “born again” Christians-53 percent of them-and most adults associated with evangelical churches-also 53 percent-maintained this relativistic view. And when polled again in 1994, a staggering 72 percent of American adults-almost three out of four-affirmed some kind of relativism.

What if relativism were true? An illustration
Relativism is the position that all points of view are as valid and as any other points of view and that the individual is the measure of what is true for that person. I see a big problem with this. Following is an illustration to demonstrate it.
The setting: A thief is casing a jewelry store so he can rob it. He has entered it to check out any visible alarm settings, locks, layout, etc. In the process, he has unexpectedly gotten involved in a discussion with the owner of the jewelry store whose hobby is the study of philosophy and believes that truth and morals are relative.
“So,” says the owner, “everything is relative. That is why I believe that all morals are not absolute and that right and wrong is up to the individual to determine within the confines of society. But there is no absolute right and wrong.”
“That is a very interesting perspective,” says the thief. “I was brought up believing that there was a God and that there was right and wrong. But I abandoned all of that and I agree with you that there is no absolute right and wrong and that we are free to do what we want.”
The thief leaves the store and returns that evening and breaks in. He has disabled all the alarms and locks and is in the process of robbing the store. That is when the owner of the store enters through a side door. The thief pulls out a gun. The owner cannot see the man’s face because he is wearing a ski mask.
“Don’t shoot me,” says the owner. “Please take whatever you want and leave me alone.”
“That is exactly what I plan to do,” says the thief.
“Wait a minute. I know you. You are the man that was in the store earlier today. I recognize your voice.”
“That is very unfortunate for you,” says the thief. “Because now you also know what I look like. And since I do not want to go to jail I am forced to kill you.”
“You cannot do that,” says the owner.
“Why not?”
“Because it is not right,” pleads the desperate man.
“But did not tell me today that there is no right and wrong?”
“But I have a family, children and need me, and a wife.”
“So? I am sure that you are insured and that they will get a lot of money. But since there is no right and wrong it makes no difference whether or not I kill you. And since if I let you live you will turn me in and I will go to prison. Sorry , but that will not do.”
“But it is a crime against society to kill me. It is wrong because society says so.”
“As you can see, I don’t recognize society’s claim to impose morals on me. It’s all relative. Remember?”
“Please to not shoot me. I beg you. I promise not to tell anyone what you look like. I swear it!”
“I do not believe you and I cannot take that chance.”
“But it is true!” I swear I’ll tell no one.”
“Sorry, but it cannot be true because there is no absolute truth, no right and wrong, no error, remember? If I let you live and then I left, you will break your so-called promise because it is all relative. There is no way I could trust you. Our conversation this morning convinced me that you believe everything is relative. Because of that, I cannot believe you will keep your word. I cannot trust you.
“But it is wrong to kill me. It isn’t right!”
“It is neither right or wrong for me to kill you. Since truth is relative to the individual, if I kill you, that is my truth. And, it is obviously true that if I let you live I will go to prison. Sorry, but you have killed yourself.”
“No. Please do not shoot me. I beg you.”
“Begging makes no difference.”
…. Bang….
If relativism is true, then was it wrong to pull the trigger? Perhaps someone might say that it is wrong to take another life needlessly. But why is that wrong, if there is no standard of right in wrong? Others have said that it is a crime against society. But, so what? If what is true for you is simply true, then what is wrong with killing someone to protect yourself after you have robbed him? If is true for you that to protect yourself you must kill, then who cares what society says? Why is anyone obligated to conform to social norms? Doing so is a personal decision.
Though not all relativists will behave in an unethical manner, I see relativism as a contributor to overall anarchy. Why? Because it is a justification to do whatever you want.

The many Faces of Relativism

• Objective Relativism is the view that the beliefs of a person or group of persons are “true” for them, but not necessarily for others. Ultimately, says this brand of relativism, no truth is universally, objectively true or false. One person’s “truth,” which really amounts to opinion, can conflict with another’s “truth” and still be valid. Objective relativism (also known as “epistemological relativism”) challenges the very existence of truth. (Epistemology is the study of knowledge-an examination of how we know what we know, our underlying assumptions, and the validity of our knowledge.)

• Religious Relativism maintains that one religion can be true for one person or culture but not for another. No religion, therefore, is universally or exclusively true. Religious beliefs are simply an accident of birth: If a person grows up in America, chances are good that he might become a Christian; if in India, that he will be a Hindu; if in Saudi Arabia, that he will be a Muslim. If what one believes is the product of historical happenstance the argument goes, no single religious belief can be universally or objectively true.

• Moral Relativism maintains that there are no moral absolutes, no objective ethical right and wrong. Moral values are true-or “genuine”-for some, but not for others. Since there are differing expressions of morality in the world, there is no reason to think that one is any more true and objectively binding than another. The implication is that statements of value (for example, “adultery is wrong) can be true for some but false for others. Something is wrong-sleeping with the boss, stealing paper clips, or leaving work early-only if you think or feel it is wrong.

• Cultural Relativism says that what is immoral in our culture is not necessarily immoral in another culture. No one, therefore, can judge another culture’s moral values. Philosopher of science Michael Ruse illustrates this view well. Ruse refers to the once widespread Indian practice of sutee, the burning of a widow at her husband’s funeral, which was later outlawed by the British: “Obviously, such a practice is totally alien to Western customs and morality. In fact, we think that widow sacrifice is totally immoral.” That may be what Westerners think, yet Ruse says it is wrong to judge sutee as a bad thing. Obviously, the same principle means we shouldn’t condemn slavery in America, genocide in Africa, or female infanticide in China.

• Historical Relativism maintains that historical truth differs over periods of time. The interpretation of historical “truths” in one generation may be replaced by a subsequent one. As an example, consider Columbus Day. A generation ago students wrote reports extolling the discovery of America by Columbus. Today-if the holiday is observed at all-Columbus is cast as an evil conqueror. Historical relativists believe that researching and debating the facts of the matter would be futile.

• Scientific Relativism asserts that scientific “progress” is nothing but one theory being replaced by another. It is best exemplified by philosopher Thomas Kuhn, who maintains that Einstein’s physics replaced Newtonian physics not because Einstein’s theory was closer to correct or a truer description of reality, but merely because paradigms shuffled. In scientific relativism, there is no such thing as objective truth, even in the “hard” sciences. There is no common language between proponents of one scientific theory and those of another, and what is true or rational in one scientific perspective is not so in another.

• Aesthetic Relativism is most easily understood as “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Recalling the litter of student-produced “art” scattered around the grounds of High Schools and Universities, the remarkable ability of contemporary artists to produce works that even the artist’s mother doesn’t like. One person’s trash is another person’s art, and one observer’s standard for art are just as valid as another’s. Going far beyond relativism, postmodern art abandons truth and utterly devalues human beings and the created order. Rather that being merely provocative, postmodern “art” can at times be destructive or degrading. Postmodern artists (can we call them artists) consider the emotional reaction of their audiences to be part of their work of art-such as an artist’s photograph of his own bowel movement or a crucifix submerged in urine. Artistic standards such as technical excellence, creativity, and the capturing of universal and enduring human experience are shunned by postmodern artists.

The Implications of Relativism

Given the pervasiveness of relativism in our society, we ought to briefly consider some of its implications. Having discussed the examples of relativism a moment ago, you have no doubt also noticed the following effects.
One implication –at least on the religious front-is that persuasion is prohibited. On many university campuses, evangelism-the taboo word is “proselytizing”-is viewed as “cramming your religion down someone’s throat.” Obviously trying to evangelize another implies you have truth to proclaim-and you think your listeners may well be wrong.
This brings to a second implication: To be exclusivist is to be arrogant. Given the number of different religious beliefs in the world, to claim to know something that others are ignorant of therefore must be wrongheaded and erroneous! Moreover, exclusive claims-especially about the uniqueness Christ for salvation-are often confused with Western colonialism and imperialism-nothing more than bigotry and narrow-mindedness, a Western imposition of ideas upon unknowing or unwilling hearers. (To be sure, non-Christians have in some cases good reasons to be critical of us. Christians invite hostility when they shout that Christianity is true and exclusive-and equally loudly proclaim that other views contain no truth at all. Christians can indeed appreciate much of what is true within other faiths. Since all truth is God’s truth, moral truths, for instance, can be found outside the Bible-just as truths from mathematics, history, and science can be. Exactly what or even whether the Christian should seek to learn from or imitate ethical non-Christian religions, however, is another, more complicated, matter.)
The third implication is that tolerance is the cardinal virtue. The imply that someone is wrong is terribly intolerant, especially when tolerance is popularly, but erroneously defined as being open to and accepting of all ideas. What homosexual activists call tolerance, for example, is unconditional acceptance of their lifestyle as legitimate and right. As we will see later in this study, this attitude of open-mindedness actually turns out to be empty-headedness. It lacks discrimination and any criterion for acceptability. In the words of Allan Bloom, “Openness used to be the virtue that permitted us to seek the good by using reason. It now means accepting everything and denying reason’s power.”

Might Makes Right

A final implication of relativism perhaps best explains how our arguments over truth can begin to feel like war: In the absence of the possibility of truth, power rules the day. That is, once truth is whatever we say it is, asserting power over others is a natural next step. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) wrote that the obliteration of God-and therefore all objective standards for truth and morality-would usher in an age of nihilism, the rejection of all objective meaning and value. All that is left is the will to ppower, by which only the fittest survive.
Stanley Fish at Duke University, well-known for his repudiation of objective literary or moral standards, has said, “Someone is always going to be restricted next, and it is your job to make sure that the someone is not you.” Many special interest groups today, though certainly not all, operate on this principle: Because they have no objective standards by which they operate-no evidence to what they advocate is good or right-they can only exert power to legitimize their views, to let their voices be heard and provoke change to their view. Government or other social structures become weapons of power, wielded by the cultural elites and interest groups that have grabbed more influence and power than the other side.
This is the environment into which we speak-relativistic, power-conscious, hostile to truth claims, especially those that flow from faith. Though relativists claim to own the label of “tolerant,” as we critique objective and moral relativism we begin to see how this incoherent, self-contradictory philosophy is far more dogmatic and narrow-minded than Christianity is. It is strangely ironic that, despite allegations that Christians are bigoted and narrow, the Christian’s absolutist position is not only true but consistent and compassionate.

Imagine a multiple-car collision at a busy intersection near your home. It’s an occurrence that shouldn’t be hard to picture. It may, in fact, strike a little too close to home.
Now stretch your imagination further. Assume we live in a less lawsuit-happy world. Instead of all parties silently exchanging license and insurance information and driving away without admitting even a sliver of blame, every-one runs into the intersection to explain his or her side of the story: “you pulled in front of me!” “But I had the right of way. Don’t you know read means stop?” Pedestrians who witnessed the accident from the curb interject what they saw. A trucker with an elevated, commanding view of the intersection weighs in. Then perhaps the guilty party steps forward: “Well, actually, it was my fault. I was talking on my car phone. I wasn’t paying attention to what I was doing. I caused the accident.”
For all the post-accident debate, when a police officer arrives and begins taking notes, one truth will be clear: An accident happened. And in time, other truths will be determined. Ultimately, a description of the accident will emerge that corresponds to reality.
We live our lives relying on the belief that objective truth exists-if only we can find it. We gather evidence. Weigh the credibility and truthfulness. Make difficult judgments. In the end, we arrive at a close proximity to truth. We can make truthful statements that describe with reasonable accuracy how events really happened. (Or, given the right evidence, we can determine truth regarding whether the car we bought was a lemon, or how our major life decisions were right or wrong, or if God is real.) We believe that if we had a helicopter view over every intersection and a video camera inside every car-to see who is on the cell phone, or shaving, or twisting up the volume-we can even discover truth about “accidents.”

Truth is more than our subjective reporting of a car crash. I has objective existence. It has universal application.

Truth is true-even if no one knows it.
Truth is true-even if no one admits it.
Truth is true-even is no one agrees what it is.
Truth is true-even if no one follow it.
Truth is true-even if no one but God grasps it fully.

Although some states have given up trying to figure out whom to blame for car accidents-hence “no-fault” insurance-truth matters. And when the stakes are raised-when a child crossing the street is struck and killed, finding the truth becomes essential. Serious circumstances remind us that the difficulty of finding truth is no excuse for not looking for it, or that it does not exist.
Deflating the Slogans

“True for you, but not for me”

• If my belief is only true for me, why isn’t your belief only true for you? Aren’t you saying you want me to believe the same thing you do?

• You say no belief is true for everyone, but you want everyone to believe what you do. You’re making universal claims that relativism is true and absolutism is false.

• You can’t in the same breath say, “Nothing is universally true” and “My view is universally true.” Relativism falsifies itself. It claims there is one position that is true-relativism!

• You’re applying your view to everyone but yourself. You expect others to believe your views (the “self-accepting fallacy”)

“So many people disagree-relativism must be true.”

• Disagreement doesn’t necessarily mean everything is relative-or, put another way, that noting is universally true. Disagreements can result because (a) people don’t have full knowledge, or (b) people have differing underlying assumptions about reality.

• Disagreement doesn’t say anything about the truth or falsehood of an argument. It simply isn’t clear what conclusion we should draw from the fact of disagreement.

• Understanding the source of our differences doesn’t imply our differences are meaningless. Acknowledging the roots of belief says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of different views.

• Are you really willing to say that no views are ultimately false-that Nazism or Satanism is not really wrong? If you admit this, doesn’t it imply that some views are more true than others?

“Who are you to judge others?”

• When you are accused of judging, ask the accuser what he means by “judging.”

• If the person defines judging as “thinking another person is wrong” or “disagreeing with another,” you can respond, “You think I’m wrong. You’re not agreeing with me.”

• You’re judging me for judging someone else.

• Before continuing, come to a consensus on what judgment means. (In the context of Matthew 7:1, it has to do with a sense of moral superiority in the face of another’s failure). Remember John 7:24 (“make a right judgment”).

“Christian are intolerant of other viewpoints!”

• As what your relativist friend means by “intolerant.” (Perhaps you can as him if he “tolerates” chocolate or gourmet ice cream!)

• If by “tolerance” the person means “accepting all views as true,” then you can say, “You don’t accept my view as true. Are you being intolerant?”

• Point out that the historical definition of “tolerance”-putting up with error-will be the consistent one. “Acceptance of all views” doesn’t work because tolerance is closely linked to truth. Ask if I am allowed to break the civil laws because it is right or true for me to do so? If they say no, on what basis do they say no? Who are they to judge me?

• Ask about the set of absolutes that the relativists start with:
(a) “You can’t judge” (or “judging is wrong”)
(b) “You can’t be intolerant” (or “intolerance is wrong”)
(c) “You can’t hurt others” (or “hurting others is wrong”)

• It seems that being we are made in the image of God-and thus have intrinsic value-is better basis for true tolerance and treating people with equality than is believing we live in a materialistic universe in which humans ultimately have no value.

“What right do you have to convert others to your views?”

• Ask the relativist if there is any difference between persuading and converting. (“Convert” is often a loaded term.) Is persuasion ever legitimate?

• Those who try to discourage or prevent others from evangelizing are themselves “evangelists” for their viewpoint. Talk about the tactics of the “crypto-evangelist,” who try to persuade others to not persuade others.

“Your values are right for you, but not for me.”

• Moral relativism is unlivable. If we were arbitrarily failed in school or imprisoned without cause, what grounds would we have for protest?

• Is there really no difference between Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler? If yes, on what basis could you say that?

“Who are you to say another cultures values are wrong?”

• If moral relativism is true, there is no basis for opposing genocide, racism, terrorism, torture, and the like.

• Moral relativism could never bring about the abolition of slavery or the equal rights of women, but most of us intuitively recognize these moral milestones.

• Should we “respect” the “right” of Nazi Germany to invade relatively powerless nations?

• Moral relativism cannot judge between confliction moral beliefs and practices. What should cultures that do not practice, say, cannibalism or human sacrifice think about those that do?

• Those who oppose “Western” cultures, values tend to replace them with another set of values an arbitrary move if there is no objective morality. Why thing “Western culture’s go to go” if everything is relative?

• Who are you to impose your values? The moral relativist seems to be saying that such an “imposition” ought not be done, which implies moral absolutes. If the moral relativist thinks this ought not be done, then gently ask, “Who are you to impose your values on those who want to impose their values on others?”

• Should governments not “impose” their morality on rapists, murderers, thieves, and child molesters?

“You have the right to choose your own values.”

• When people really deny the rightness of kindness or the wrongness of murder or torturing babies, it is appropriate, as a last resort, to question their psychological health.

• Moral relativism removes any reason to live morally and cultivate character.

“Ethics is based on a social contract.”

• Such morality isn’t binding upon the person who does not want to go along with it.

“Christianity is arrogant and imperialistic.”

• Religious pluralism is just as exclusivistic as Christianity. The pluralist believes that the exclusivists position is wrong and that his position is false.

• The pluralist tends to be “intolerant” of exclusivistic religions and must water down or relativize their beliefs (for example, Jesus as the “Son of God” is just a metaphor for being “God-conscious”). The pluralist tends to assert what is essential and not essential for the exclusivist to believe.

• The pluralist seems to overlook that fact that the major religions were founded on fundamental, often conflicting, beliefs that affect salvation of one’s soul. One is true and the rest false, or all is false, but not all can be true since they are mutually exclusive in their claims.

This is a study I did from Paul Copan’s book-”True for you but not for me.” It is a great articulation of much of what is here.

David