I have attached a paper I recently wrote for my final exam in a Theology class. I feel it has so much relevance to modern times. I hope you enjoy reading. Please reach out to me with any questions or comments you may have.
Philosophy for millennia has posited ideas and theories in the public square through healthy debate. These exchanges have acted as agents that have shaped the worldviews of the world’s inhabitants. Christian thinkers may remember Acts 17 when Paul famously spoke of the things of God among the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in the Areopagus, the famous public square of intellectual exchange in Athens. For the most part, philosophical exchange has been healthy; in Paul’s case, Dionysius and Damaris even responded to his message in faith and found salvation in Christ. However, sometimes philosophy evolves into dangerous and destructive ideas, few of which rival the idea of Relativism. The first reported appearance of Relativism in Western philosophy occurs about 500 years before the events of Acts 17 by Protagoras of Abdera. Maria Baghramian and Annalisa Coliva recount in their book, Relativism, “Protagoras is considered the first official voice of relativism because of his famous dictum: ‘man is the measure (metron) of all things (chremata): of the things which are that they are, and of the things which are not, that they are not.’” As one can infer, though there are varieties, Relativism is the enemy of Absolutes. The Absolute is best defined as that which is true regardless of the perspective or emotional response of the subject viewing the Absolute in question. Relativism asserts that a subjective perspective is of equal validity as the absolute or objective reality. Ravi Zacharias puts forth a simple phrase to sum up the meaning of Relativism in his book, Jesus Among Secular Gods, “True for you, but not for me.” To the Christian, it is immediately apparent that Relativism’s assertions position it not only in conflict with the Christian faith and message but also with Jesus Christ himself, who is recorded as making claims to be the very embodiment of truth in John 14:6. That text states, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” This paper will seek to provide a concise intellectual and Biblical critique to the Relativistic view of truth and, in fulfillment of this, will briefly explore its motivations and repercussions.
Intellectually, there are several problems with the idea that truth is fluid. Recall my previous statement, “though there are varieties.” There are indeed varieties in the philosophy of Relativism. These varieties can be categorized into two overarching, broad types of Relativistic theory: Global and Local. Karlo Broussard offers excellent definitions to provide clarity in the distinctions,
Global relativism involves relativistic claims about truth in general. Whether we’re talking about morality, science, religion, history, etc., global relativism states there are no absolute truths whatsoever… The second category of relativism is local relativism, which involves relativistic claims about truth in particular domains, such as morality, science, religion, history, etc. Global Relativism is easily refutable because it is self-defeating. Recall Protagoras’ statement that “man is the measure of all things.” Harvey Siegel makes a brilliant observation of Protagoras’ view of equal validity of all truth, “If knowledge is relative, then the task of judging claims to knowledge is pointless. If Protagoras’ thesis is right, it cannot be right for it undermines the very notion of rightness. Protagoras’ relativism is thus self-defeating, if it is right It cannot be right and therefore is incoherent.” In clearer terms, if Protagoras claims that absolute truth does not exist, then his statement cannot be categorized as absolutely true. Furthermore, according to Protagoras’ logic, if one other person held that Protagoras’ view of truth is false, then the dissenting claim must be regarded as true even though it is found in conflict with Protagoras’ initial thesis.
Another intellectual flaw of Global Relativism and some divisions of what has been described as Local Relativism is that these views are simply incompatible with reality. One may recall George Orwell’s famous fiction novel 1984. Winston Smith, the main character, sits contemplating the over-reaching government's attempts to confuse truth. One such attempt includes remaking the commonly held view that two and two make four by a constant imposition that two and two make five. Winston recounts in his personal thoughts,
"All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers, but they could not afford to encourage any illusion that tended to impair military efficiency… physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or airplane, they had to make four."
This excerpt shows a rare moment when a work of fiction brilliantly illustrates and exposes the flaws of real-world ideology, a tactic which Orwell executed with poise. His point perfectly calls out the truth of the matter. One may consider the illustration of building a house using Relative ideology and philosophy on a Local level in the science of mathematics. The overwhelming probability is the house would absolutely not be up to a livable standard of any kind—not even relatively close. If the laws of mathematics are to be used to produce any functioning result, one has no choice but to accept that they are incapable of any sort of fluidity, including imposition by being viewed through the Relativistic lens of personal perspective or perception. G.K. Chesterton once said, “once you step into the world of facts, you step into a world of limits. You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature.”
While it may be misleading to suggest the Bible has much to say about Relativism specifically, it is undeniably true that the Bible has much to say on the topic of truth. As previously acknowledged, Jesus famously claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life. (John 14:6) It has been said many times that Jesus did not claim to be a way or a truth, but he claimed to be the way and the truth. Abdu Murray, a lawyer and Christian apologist, makes an excellent observation about this well-known verse,
"Such a claim can’t just sit out there. We would justifiably demand evidence to back it up, just as the religious leaders did when they heard Jesus’ claims (John 2:18). Jesus’ bodily resurrection ultimately vindicated his claim… His audacious claim to be the way and truth is substantiated by objective proof. His physical body would either be dead or alive after the crucifixion. Preferences and opinions about it were (and still are) irrelevant. "
As a lawyer, Abdu reminds us of an important truth we may have forgotten in this sea of Relativism: proof substantiates facts. Thankfully for us, God has provided incredible evidence of documented, and sometimes personal, testimony of people who witnessed the risen Savior. A recounting of such events would include the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24), Mary Magdalene (John 20), the disciples in the Upper Room and before Thomas (John 20), seven disciples by the Sea of Tiberias (John 21), 500 witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6), and the Apostle Paul himself. (Acts 9, 1 Corinthians 15:8). As reasonable people, we can take these statements of witness testimony as evidence and weigh them to substantiate or delegitimize the validity of the claim of the resurrection; however, one thing is certain, one view will emerge more adequately substantiated by the evidence. The evidence bears out the true claim of the resurrection, and dissenting claims fall flat regardless of preference or opinion. Reasonable evidence enables reasoned conclusions.
Speaking of reasoned conclusions, it should not prove difficult, given the arguments raised, to conclude that Relativism leaves much to be desired as a functional, relevant worldview. One of the greatest problems with Relativism is the unintended repercussions of its intended motives. Relativism, in application involving morals, intends to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance of different ideals. The problem is the unintended consequence of such reasoning; namely, the absence of a moral standard, which involuntarily invokes moral chaos. Consider the following question by Greg Koukl: “What’s the difference between a relativist and a person who admits she has no morality? There seems to be none. How does a relativist make a moral decision? He decides for himself whatever he thinks is best. How does someone with no morality know how to act? She decides for herself whatever is best.” An absence of a moral standard coupled with an increasingly tolerant worldview, I will argue, has led to glorified cultural immorality and has made the modern world more reflective of the era of the book of Judges in which “there was no king in Israel and every man did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25) This adaptation of tolerance and rejection of standards has led to a cultural shift in which dissenting opinion invoking a moral standard has been silenced. C.S. Lewis foretold this trend in The Abolition of Man— “For the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means, as we have seen, the power of some men to make other men what they please.”
This paper has only scarcely scratched the surface of Relativism’s depth or the degree of its rebuttals; however, this paper has shown that there are many points of error in the philosophy of Relativism. This philosophy is incoherent to reality and is self-defeating. It is in stark contrast with the words of the Lord Jesus. Through an exploration of the flaws of Relativism, we have simultaneously explored the repercussions of this worldview and its potential effects on both the individual and the collective. C.S. Lewis brilliantly wrote, “Human nature will be the last part of nature to surrender to Man. The battle will then be won. We shall have ‘taken the thread of life out of the hand of Clotho’ and be henceforth free to make our species whatever we wish it to be. The battle will indeed be won. But who, precisely, will have won it?”
Bibliography
Baghramian, Maria, and Annalisa Coliva. Relativism. 1st Edition. London: Routledge, 2019.
Broussard, Karlo. "How to Refute Relativism." Catholic Answers Magazine, 2019. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-refute-relativism
Chesterton, G.K. Orthodoxy. New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Koukl, Gregory, and Francis J. Beckwith. Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man. Quebec: Samizdat University Press, 1943.
Murray, Abdu. Saving Truth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018.
Orwell, George. 1984. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 1949.
Siegel, Harvey. "Relativism, Truth, and Incoherence." Synthese 68, no. No. 2 (1986): 226.
Zacharias, Ravi, and Vince Vitale. Jesus Among Secular Gods. New York, NY: FaithWords, 2017.
1 Comment