RELATIVISM-WHAT IS THE TRUTH

What is relativism? question mark by Matt Slick Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid, and that all truth is relative to the individual. This means that all moral positions, all religious systems, all art forms, all political movements, etc., are truths that are relative to the individual. Under the umbrella of relativism, whole groups of perspectives are categorized. In obvious terms, some are: * cognitive relativism (truth) - Cognitive relativism affirms that all truth is relative. This would mean that no system of truth is more valid than another one, and that there is no objective standard of truth. It would, naturally, deny that there is a God of absolute truth. * moral/ethical relativism - All morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed. * situational relativism - Ethics (right and wrong) are dependent upon the situation. Unfortunately, the philosophy of relativism is pervasive in our culture today. With the rejection of God, and Christianity in particular, absolute truth is being abandoned. Our pluralistic society wants to avoid the idea that there really is a right and wrong. This is evidenced in our deteriorating judicial system that has more and more trouble punishing criminals, in our entertainment media which continues to push the envelope of immorality and indecency, in our schools which teach evolution and "social tolerance," etc. In addition, the plague of moral relativism is encouraging everyone to accept homosexuality, pornography, fornication, and a host of other "sins" that were once considered wrong but are now being accepted and even promoted in society. It is becoming so pervasive that if you speak out against moral relativism and its "anything goes" philosophy, you're labeled as an intolerant bigot. Of course, this is incredibly hypocritical of those who profess that all points of view are true, yet reject those who profess absolutes in morality. It seems that what is really meant by the moral relativists is that all points of view are true except for the views that teach moral absolutes, an absolute God, or absolute right and wrong. Some typical expressions that reveal an underlying presupposition of relativism are comments such as: "That is your truth, not mine;" "It is true for you, but not for me;" and "There are no absolute truths." Of course, these statements are illogical, which I demonstrate in the paper "Refuting relativism." Relativism is invading our society, our economy, our schools, and our homes. Society cannot flourish nor survive in an environment where everyone does what is right in his own eyes, where the situation determines moral truth, and that lying and cheating are okay as long as you don't get caught. Without a common foundation of truth and absolutes, our culture will become weak and fragmented. I must admit, however, that there is validity to some aspects of relativism. For example, what one society considers right (driving on the left side of the road) another considers wrong. These are customs to which a "right and wrong" are attached, but they are purely relativistic and not universal because they are culturally based. Child rearing principles vary in different societies, as do burial practices and wedding ceremonies. These "right and wrong ways" are not cosmically set in stone, nor are they derived from some absolute rule of conduct by some unknown god. They are relative, and rightly so. But, their relativism is properly asserted as such. It doesn't matter what side of the road we drive on as long as we all do it the same way. Likewise, there are experiences that are valid only for individuals. I might be irritated by a certain sound, where another person will not. In this sense, what is true for me is not necessarily true for someone else. It is not an absolute truth that the identical sound causes irritation to all people. This is one way of showing that certain aspects of relativism are true. But, is it valid to say that because there is a type of personal relativism that we can then apply that principle to all areas of experience and knowledge and say that they too are also relative? No, it is not a valid assumption. First of all, to do so would be an absolute assessment, which contradicts relativism. Furthermore, if all things are relative, then there cannot be anything that is absolutely true between individuals. In other words, if all people deny absolute truth and establish relative truth only from their experiences, then everything is relative to the individual. How then can there be a common ground from which to judge right and wrong or truth? It would seem that there cannot. Of course, the issue that is important here is whether or not there are absolute truths. Also, can there be different kinds of absolute truths if indeed there are absolute truths? We might ask if it is always wrong to lie. Or, does 1 + 1 always equal 2? Is it always true that something cannot be both in existence and not in existence at the same time? Is it always true that something cannot bring itself into existence if it first does not exist? If any of these questions can be answered in the affirmative then relativism is refuted -- at least to some degree. Morality and Punishment More questions arise. If all moral views are equally valid, then do we have the right to punish anyone? Can we ever say that something is wrong? In order to say that something is wrong, we must first have a standard by which we weigh right and wrong in order to make a judgment. If that standard of right and wrong is based on relativism, then it is not a standard at all. In relativism, standards of right and wrong are derived from social norms. Since society changes, the norms would change and so would right and wrong. If right and wrong change, then how can anyone be rightly judged for something he did wrong if that wrong might become right in the future? Finally, is it fair to apply logical analysis to relativistic principles? Many relativists say no, but I do not see why not. If a relativist were to convince me that logic isn’t necessary in examining relativism, he’d have to convince me using logic, which would be self-defeating. If a relativist uses relativism -- the subjective view of his own opinions -- to validate his position, he is using circular reasoning; namely, he is using relativism to establish relativism. So, either way he has lost the argument. But, with relativism who really cares, since it is all relative? To conclude, if relativism is true and all points of view are true, then is my view that relativism is false also true? Are there absolutes or is everything relative? by Matt Slick Yes, there are such things as absolutes. There are also things that are relative, but if everything were relative then it would be absolutely true that everything is relative, and that would be self-refuting. So saying that everything is relative can’t be true. Likewise, if everything were absolutely true, then we couldn’t have such things as personal preferences or things that change. Relative truths can be things dependent upon each person. That which is absolute is always true. That which is relative is not necessarily always true. For example, it is always true that the number seven is greater than the number five. It's always true that something cannot bring itself into existence. On the other hand, one person may believe that blue is a better color than green, where another person may disagree. In this case, what is true for one person is not true for another. Therefore, there can be truths that are relative, that change. The person who believes that blue is a better color than green may change his or her mind later on. Unfortunately, more and more people are not able to distinguish between absolute truths and relative truths, and they put their feelings and preferences above absolutes to make them more palatable. A typical example is when someone would say that “It is true for you that Jesus is the only way to God, but to a Muslim, Mohammed would be the only way." Such statements ignore the logical possibilities of having two "only-ways" to God. So, there are absolutes and there are things that are relative. Ethical Relativism by Matt Slick Ethical relativism is the position that there are no moral absolutes, no moral right and wrongs. Instead, right and wrong are based on social norms. Such could be the case with "situational ethics," which is a category of ethical relativism. At any rate, ethical relativism would mean that our morals have evolved, that they have changed over time, and that they are not absolute. One advantage of ethical relativism is that it allows for a wide variety of cultures and practices. It also allows people to adapt ethically as the culture, knowledge, and technology change in society. This is a good and valid form of relativism. The disadvantage of ethical relativism is that truth, right and wrong, and justice are all relative. Just because a group of people think that something is right does not make it so. Slavery is a good example of this. Two hundred years ago in America, slavery was the norm and morally acceptable. Now it is not. Relativism also does not allow for the existence of an absolute set of ethics. Logically, if there are no absolute ethics, then there can be no Divine Absolute Ethics Giver. Requiring an absolute set of ethics implies an Absolute Ethics Giver, which can easily be extrapolated as being God. This would be opposed to ethical relativism. Therefore, ethical relativism would not support the idea of an absolute God, and it would exclude religious systems based upon absolute morals; that is, it would be absolute in its condemnation of absolute ethics. In this, relativism would be inconsistent, since it would deny beliefs of absolute values. Furthermore, if ethics have changed over time, there is the problem of self-contradiction within the relativistic perspective. 200 years ago slavery was socially acceptable and correct. Now it is not. There has been a change in social ethics in America regarding this issue. The problem is that if slavery becomes acceptable again in the next 200 years, who is to say if it is right or wrong? We would have a contradictory set of right and wrong regarding the same issue. To this I ask the question, does truth contradict itself? (But this gets into the discussion of the nature of truth.) Within ethical relativism, right and wrong are not absolute and must be determined in society by a combination of observation, logic, social preferences and patterns, experience, emotions, and "rules" that seem to bring the most benefit. Of course, it goes without saying that a society involved in constant moral conflict would not be able to survive for very long. Morality is the glue that holds a society together. There must be a consensus of right and wrong for a society to function well. Ethical relativism undermines that glue. It seems to be universal among cultures that it is wrong to murder, to steal, and to lie. We see that when individuals practice these counterproductive ethics, they are soon in prison and/or punished. Since ethics are conceptual in nature, and there are some ethics that seem to transcend all cultures (be true for all societies), I conclude that there is a transcendent God who has authored these ethics -- but that is another discussion. I do not believe that the best ethical patterns discovered by which societies operate (honesty, fidelity, truth, no theft, no murder, etc.) are the product of our biological makeup or trial and error. As a Christian, I see them as a reflection of God’s very character. They are a discovery of the rules God has established by which people best interact with people, because He knows how He has designed them. The 10 commandments are a perfect example of moral absolutes and have yet to be improved upon. They are transcendent; that is, they are not dependent on social norms and are always true. I was once challenged to prove that there were moral absolutes. I took up the challenge with the following argument. I asked the gentleman whether or not there were logical absolutes. For example, I asked if it was a logical absolute that something could exist and also not exist at the same time. He said no, that it was not possible. Another example is that something cannot bring itself into existence. To this he agreed that there were indeed logical absolutes. I then asked him to explain how logical absolutes can exist if there is no God. I questioned him further by asking him to tell me how in a purely physical universe logical absolutes, which are by nature conceptual, can exist. I told him they cannot be measured, put in a test tube, weighed, nor captured; yet, they exist. So, I asked him to please tell me how these conceptual absolute truths can exist in a purely physical universe... without a God. He could not answer me. I then went on to say that these conceptual absolutes logically must exist in the mind of an absolute God, because they cannot merely reside in the properties of matter in a purely naturalistic universe. And since the logical absolutes are true everywhere all the time and they are conceptual, it would seem logical that they exist within a transcendent, omnipresent being. If there is an absolute God with an absolute mind, then he is the standard of all things – as well as morals. Therefore, there would be moral absolutes. To this argument the gentleman chuckled, said he had never heard that argument before, and conceded that it may be possible for moral absolutes to exist. Of course as a Christian, as one who believes in the authority and inspiration of the Bible, I consider moral absolutes to be real because they come from God and not because they somehow reside in a naturalistic universe or are determined by the whims of mankind. Ethics are important in society, in the home, and in all interactions. Would you believe me if I started lying to you in this paper? No. You expect me to be fair, honest, logical, and forthright. Can I be that if I believe all ethics are relative? What is Moral Relativism? by Robin Schumacher Moral relativism is a philosophy that asserts there is no global, absolute moral law that applies to all people, for all time, and in all places. Instead of an objective moral law, it espouses a qualified view where morals are concerned, especially in the areas of individual moral practice where personal and situational encounters supposedly dictate the correct moral position. Summing up the relative moral philosophy, Frederick Nietzsche wrote, “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist.” In modern times, the espousal of moral relativism has been closely linked to the theory of evolution. The argument is, in the same way that humanity has evolved from lesser to greater biological organisms, the same process is in play in the area of morals and ethics. Therefore, all that can be ascertained at present (and forever) is that there is no absolute or fixed certainty in the area of morality. Following this argument to its logical conclusion causes consternation among many, even those who espouse moral relativism. Paul Kurtz, in the book The Humanist Alternative, sums up the end result this way: “If man is a product of evolution, one species among others, in a universe without purpose, then man’s option is to live for himself”. A grand example of this philosophy in action can be seen in the 2007-2008 meltdown that occurred in the American financial and banking industry. Those who taught relative morality in their philosophy and business ethics college courses proceeded to live out those teachings on Wall Street and in other corporate avenues, taking risks, not representing the truth properly, seeking monetary gain, etc, with the outcome being devastating for those who were on the receiving end of their relative (and financial) morality. Oddly enough, many who believed in relative morality at that time were outraged and absolutely sure that those who engaged in deceptive business practices ought to be punished for their unethical moral behavior. This type of reaction speaks loudly to an important truth: moral relativists have a rather dim view of moral relativism when it negatively effects them. Let the moral relativist be lied to, be the victim of false advertising, or of a crime and he instantly becomes a moral absolutist. A person’s reaction to what he considers unfair ethical treatment always betrays his true feelings on the matter of relative vs. objective moral laws....when things go wrong for him. The problem for the moral relativist (who is most times a secular humanist that rejects God) is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action and, if so, why? Appealing to the relative whims of society or personal preferences doesn't provide satisfying answers. A better response to the question necessitates that an individual have: (1) an unchanging standard he can turn to, and (2) an absolute authority by which proper moral obligation and be defended. Without these, morals/ethics simply becomes emotionally based preferences. Rape, for example, can never be deemed wrong; the strongest statement that can be made about rape is “I don’t like it.” Three options for moral basis The only options available to the secular humanist where a standard and authority are concerned are: (1) the natural universe; (2) culture; (3) the individual. The natural universe doesn't work since no one has even closesly explained how matter, atoms, chemicals, and electricity produce proper moral truths from which moral behavior is rightly derived. Culture doesn't help as there are many cultures throughout the world, all with differing moral standards and practices; there is no way to ascertain which culture is ‘correct’ -- if at all. Culture merely displays what “is” with respect to morality, and even the famous skeptic and antagonist of religion David Hume stated that humanity cannot derive an “ought” from an “is” where morals are concerned. Lastly, if each individual is used as a standard/authority for morals, the problem becomes one of imposing personal preferences on others and asking whose moral opinion is right? Seeing this dilemma, some moral relativists try to say that science can be used to dictate ethics, but even secular scientists admit that science is a descriptive discipline (explanation) and not a prescriptive one (obligation). In addition, its empirical methods are impotent to answer such moral questions such as if the Nazi’s were evil or not, or is murder really morally wrong, or why is rape morally reprehensible? Einstein sums up the correct position in this matter when he said, “You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn round and speak of the scientific foundations of morality.” In the end, the moral relativist has no satisfying answer in his/her attempt to respond to the question of if there is anything wrong with anything, and why, outside of his opinion. There is no standard to turn to and no authority to recognize and respect. The Christian Worldview In contrast to the moral relativist whose worldview is secular humanism, the Christian worldview provides a solid standard and authority that can be confidently referenced and followed. The Creator God, who has revealed Himself in His Word is both the standard and authority for morals. From God’s nature comes pure good that serves as the straight line by which all crooked lines can be corrected. God’s image has been impressed upon humanity (cf. Gen. 1:26-27) so that human beings instinctively know God’s moral law and what is right and wrong (cf. Rom. 2:14-15). People don’t have to believe in God to know His moral law, but in denying Him, they lose the ability to ground an objective moral law in something that transcends the physical universe. Without that transcendent God, as Dostoevsky famously observed, everything is permissible. The tragic truth for the moral relativist is this: when you hold God’s funeral and bury His moral law along with Him, something will take His place. That something will be an individual or group of individuals who take power and, in authoritarian fashion, impose their own moral framework on everyone else. The world has already seen such things in the regimes of Stalin and Pol Pot. The far better course of action is to thankfully acknowledge God as the true source of good and His objective moral law, which God established only for the well being of His creation. Cognitive Relativism by Matt Slick Cognitive relativism affirms that all truth is relative. This would mean that no system of determining truth is more valid than another system, and that there is no objective standard of truth to be found or claimed. It would, naturally, deny that there would be a God of absolute truth. It would also deny the belief that rational thought can discover and verify truth. But, cognitive relativism does not deny that there are differences in perspective in different cultures. In fact, it affirms them. The issue with cognitive relativism is that there is no epistemological (method of knowing something) system that is inherently superior over another. Of course, this seems to be self-refuting since it claims that its own principal of relative truth is absolutely true and uses it to determine that cognitive relativism is true. Many believe that this relativism is self-contradictory. So why has relativism gained a foot-hold in modern society? I think there are several factors contributing to its acceptance. First, the success of science has increasingly promoted the idea that true answers are found within science. Many people believe that whatever "scientists" tell them is factual -- and even good. When science cannot answer something, it simply states that the truth will become known later. With this, people have faith in science, and the only absolute is that what we know now may not be true later. Thereby, it can undermine absolute truth. Second, with the broad acceptance of the evolutionary theory, God is pushed more and more out of the picture. Without God as a determiner of what is true and not true, we are left to do and believe "what is right in our own eyes." Third, we are encountering more and more diverse cultures in the world. This tends to make us more comfortable with the idea that there is more than one way to do something, more than one way for a culture to operate, more than one way for something to be true or right. This isn't necessarily wrong, but it does contribute to a denial of absolutes. Fourth, increasingly, the content of film, academia, and literature is moving away from the notion of the absolute and towards relativism. These media help shape our culture. Fifth, there is an increase in relativistic philosophies, particularly those found in the New Age movement which teaches that there is no absolute truth and that each person can create his own reality. Though this movement is part of the relativistic "problem," it is well permeated into society. Sixth, past philosophers such as Wittgenstein, Khuh, Kant, Marx, and Neitsche, have influenced the thinking of many with their relativistic principles and attacks on absolute truths. Problems The problem I see with cognitive relativism is that it denies the possibility of absolute truth. Furthermore, I believe cognitive relativism is easily refutable with the following example of a logical absolute: Something cannot bring itself into existence. My proposed logical absolute is indeed logical and always true. Let’s look at this. For something to bring itself into existence, it has to perform an action. But for something to perform an action, it must first exist. If it first existed, then it cannot bring itself into existence because it already is existing. Likewise, if something does not exist then it is not possible for it to bring itself into existence, since it isn't there to do anything. This is an absolute truth and it is knowable. Since it is absolutely true, cognitive relativism, which states that all truth is relative, is false. Refuting relativism by Matt Slick Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self-refuting. 1. All truth is relative. 1. 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. 1. 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. 2. 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. 1. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? 1. If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. 2. If you say yes, then relativism is false. 1. If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then 1. I am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false. If that is true, then how can relativism be true? 2. am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither? 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. If you say it is neither 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. 2. 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. 1. 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. 3. 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. 1. If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false. 4. No one can know anything for sure. 1. 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. 1. Is my reality really real? 2. 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? 6. We all perceive what we want. 1. How do you know that statement is true? 2. If we all perceive what we want, then what are you wanting to perceive? 1. If you say you want to perceive truth, how do you know if you are not deceived? 2. Simply desiring truth is no proof you have it. 7. You may not use logic to refute relativism. 1. Why not? 2. Can you give me a logical reason why logic cannot be used? 3. 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. 4. 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. 1. If our perceptions are contradictory, can either perception be trusted? 2. Is truth self-contradictory? 1. If it were, then it wouldn't be true because it would be self-refuting. If something is self-refuting, then it isn't true. 3. If it 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? 4. If you are saying that it is merely my perception that is not true, then relativism is refuted. 1. If I am believing something that is false, then relativism is not true since it holds that all views are equally valid. 5. 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. 1. 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. 1. On what basis do you simply exclude relativism from the critique of logic? 1. Is this an arbitrary act? If so, does it justify your position? 2. If it is not arbitrary, what criteria did you use to exclude it? 2. To exclude itself from the start is an admission of the logical problems inherent in its system of thought. What if relativism were true? An illustration. thief by Matt Slick Relativism is the position that all points of view are as valid 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. The 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 unexpectedly got involved in a discussion with the owner of the jewelry store whose hobby is the study of philosophy and he 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 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, 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 you not tell me today that there is no right and wrong?" "Yes, but I have a family, children that 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 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 do 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 leave, you will break your so-called promise because your morals and promises are relative. There is no way I can trust you. Our conversation this morning convinced me of that." "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 for the thief to pull the trigger? Perhaps someone might say that it is wrong to take another life needlessly, but why is that wrong if there are no absolute moral standards? 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 it is true for you that to protect yourself you must kill someone, then who cares what society says -- as long as you don't get caught? Why is anyone morally obligated to conform to social norms? 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. A dialogue on relativism by Matt Slick Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid, and that all truth is relative to the individual. But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self-refuting. Following is a dialogue which I invented to illustrate a truth. Matt: I don't believe that all points of view are equally valid. Jan: Why not? Matt: Because it doesn't make sense that everything is relative. That wouldn't be logical. Jan: Ah, you see? That is your problem. You are using logic to refute relativism and you cannot do that. Relativism isn't based upon logic. It isn't the same thing. So you can't use logic to refute relativism. Matt: If you say I cannot use logic to refute relativism, then you are using logic to say this since you give me the logical statement and conclusion that I cannot use logic to refute relativism because relativism isn't based on logic and that they are not the same thing. I hope you can see that you made a logical case here for not using logic. If that is so, then your complaint is self-contradictory and invalid. Would you want me to follow a system of thought that is self-contradictory? Jan: I can see why they call you slick. But, the point is that relativism is true within itself and logic is not a necessary property of relativism. It can be used within relativism, but it is not superior to relativism. Matt: To say that relativism is true within itself is an absolute statement. Don't you see that you can't do that if relativism is true? You would have to say something like, "Relativism is true some of the time." Jan: You are playing word games here. Matt: I do not see how. I am simply responding to what you said. I think what you are doing is making assertions without proof. You are saying that it is true because it is true. In essence, you are telling me an absolute truth that relativism is its own self-existing truth. This is an absolute statement, which again refutes the notion that relativism is true. Furthermore, if relativism is true then relativism itself is relative. In other words, if relativism is true, then relativism may or may not be true in and of itself. If that is true, then relativism can be false. If relativism can be false, then relativism can't be true. Jan: There you go using logic again. Logic is not the whole means by which truth is determined. Relativism goes beyond logic to truths that logic cannot prove. Matt: Okay, then without using logic, can you tell why relativism is true? Jan: It is true because it is true that people believe different things, and people have different perceptions of reality and what is right for them. Matt: I agree that people believe different things, but does believing different things make them true because they are believed? Jan: No, of course not. But you must understand that we perceive things differently, and these different perceptions are true for different people. Matt: I can agree with that, but I am not speaking about things that really are relative, like which side of the bed you should get out of in the morning. I'm talking about things like lying, cheating, stealing, etc. If relativism is true and all points of view are equally valid, then someone's view that it is okay to steal is valid. Jan: Technically, it would be, depending on the circumstances. For example, if it meant feeding your family or helping someone. Matt: I see. Okay, give me your money right now. I want to steal it from you. If I had a gun, I'd point it at you and rob you. Is that okay? Jan: Of course not. Matt: Why not? My view is that in order to win the argument, I must rob from you to demonstrate the absurdity of your position. Therefore, it is right for me. You should approve. Jan: But I cannot, because it isn't right for me that you steal from me. Matt: Oh, so relativism has boundaries? It is true only for the individual, no one else? Jan: In that case yes. Matt: Then relativism isn't a universal truth is it? If it is only true for individuals on an individual basis, it may or may not be true or false, right or wrong, or whatever. It is just a kind of "whatever you want to do and feel" philosophy. Jan: Sort of, but you can't harm anyone else. Matt: Are you saying that it is an absolute that you are not to harm anyone else? Jan: There you go again turning this into an argument on absolutes. Matt: But I am only following your lead. You're the one who said that relativism is true because it is true. Correct? Jan: Yes, I said that, but you have to understand that it is relative to the individual. Matt: If relativism is true because it is true, then can I say that it is false because it is false? Jan: You could if you wanted to. Matt: Then would it be false or not? Jan: It would be false for you. Matt: But that isn't what I said. I said it was false.... "because it is false." I didn't say it was false for me. I said that it is by nature false. Don't you see? You said it was true "because it is true." You spoke of it as being true "by nature." You implied an absolute quality to relativism as a real truth. If I can do the same thing in the opposite direction, then how does my assertion become different in nature than yours? In other words, "by nature" it is true and "by nature" it is false. Both cannot be true. Therefore, relativism doesn't work. Jan: What you are doing is using logic again. Relativism and logic are different things. You cannot use one thing to judge another. Matt: But you just did. You made a statement and drew a conclusion. You said that relativism and logic are different. Then you said that I cannot use one to judge the other. In other words, you made a statement and drew a logical conclusion. Look. If you want to validate relativism using relativism, then why do you keep using logic to do it? Jan: You keep going back to these logic games. You have to understand that they are simply different. Matt: So then, what you are saying is that I am not allowed to examine relativism in a logical manner. Correct? Jan: Correct. Matt: You want truth, right? Jan: Of course. Matt: But, if I must accept that relativism is simply true, how can I possibly know if it is ever false? What you are saying is that it is never false. If it is never false, then it is always true. If it is always true, then it isn't relative, is it? Jan: There you go using logic again. Matt: I'm trying to ask questions, but it seems that you want me to avoid thinking and just accept relativism as true. If I were to say that relativism is true, then it is absolutely true that relativism is true which would mean that the opposing view that relativism is false could not be true...which would mean that relativism is not true since it states that all views are true. It seems to me that the only way relativism is true, is if you stop thinking logically and just accept by blind faith that it is true. Jan: This is the problem with the western, Aristotelian logic system. It teaches you that there are absolutes when there are not. Matt: But to say there are not absolutes is an absolute statement, which is self-refuting. Again, it seems the only way to accept relativism is to not think logically. You have to believe it on faith. Jan: The nature of relativism is that it is not subject to logic. No logical reasons are necessary to establish this. Relativism, by its nature, is not of logic, but beyond logic. The essence of relativism is that relativism itself is true. Matt: Then you are simply stating that relativism is true without proving it. In other words, you can't prove it. You just say it is true and that's it. Jan: We are getting nowhere. Matt: I disagree. I think we are making great progress. Jan: See? It is how you perceive it, isn't it? Matt: Then, is it valid that we have made progress? After all, relativism says that all points of view are equally valid. Jan: It's valid for you, not for me. Matt: Here we go again... What is truth? truth by Matt Slick "What is truth?" is a very simple question. Of course, answering it isn't so simple. We can offer definitions like "Truth is that which conforms to reality, fact, or actuality." But this basic definition is not complete because its definition is open to interpretation and a wide variety of applications. What is reality? What is fact? What is actuality? How does perception effect truth? We could offer answers for each of these questions, but then we could again ask similar questions of those answers. I am reminded of the paradox of throwing a ball against a wall. It must get half way there, and then half way of the remaining distance, and then half of that distance, and so on. But, an infinite number of halves in this scenario never constitutes a whole. Therefore, it would seem that the ball would never reach the wall if we applied the conceptual truths of halves. The ball-against-the-wall scenario simply illustrates that defining and redefining things as we try to approach a goal actually prevents us from getting to that goal. This is what philosophy does sometimes as it seeks to examine truth. It sometimes clouds issues so much, that nothing can be known for sure. But, even though it is true that an infinite number of halves (1/2 of "a" + 1/2 of the remainder + 1/2 of the remainder of that, etc.) does not equal a whole, we can "prove" that it does by simply throwing a ball at a wall and watching it bounce off. Actually, the "1/2" equation above does not equal a whole -- mathematically. The problem is not in the truth but in its application, as is often the case with philosophical verbal gymnastics. "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ," (Col. 2:8). In order for truth to be defined properly, it would have to be a factually and logically correct statement. In other words, it would have to be true. But, perhaps we could look further at truth by determining what it is not. Truth is not error. Truth is not self-contradictory. Truth is not deception. Of course, it could be true that someone is being deceptive, but the deception itself isn't truth. In relativism, all points of view are equally valid and all truth is relative to the individual. If this were true, then it would seem that this is the only truth relativism would have to offer. But, the problem is that in reality, relativism isn't true for the following basic reason. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? 1) If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. 2) If you say yes, then relativism is false. Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that truth is not self-contradictory. Again, what is truth? If there is such a thing as truth, then we should be able to find it. If truth cannot be known, then it probably doesn't exist. But, it does exist. For example, we know it is true that you are reading this. Is there such a thing as something that is always true all the time? Yes, there is. For example, "Something cannot bring itself into existence." This is an absolutely true statement. In order for something to bring itself into existence, it would have to exist in order to be able to perform an action. But if it already existed, then it isn't possible to bring itself into existence since it already exists. Likewise, if it does not exist then it has no ability to perform any creative action since it didn't exist in the first place. Therefore, "Something cannot bring itself into existence" is an absolute truth. The preceding example is a truth found in logic, but there are truths that are not logical by nature. It is true that I love my wife. This isn't logically provable via theorems and formulas and logic paradigms, but it is, nevertheless, true. Therefore, we can say that truth conforms and affirms reality and/or logic. Is this what relativism does? Does relativism conform to reality and logic? To be honest, it does to some degree. Relatively speaking, there is no absolute right or wrong regarding which side of your head you should part your hair, if you part it at all. To this we must concede relative "truths" that are different for different people. But, these are relativistic by nature. Examples of relativistic truths are: 1) people drive on the right side of the street in America and the left in England; 2) I prefer to watch science fiction over musicals; 3) snow is better than rain, etc. These things are relative to culture, individuals, preferences, etc., and rightfully so. If we ever hope to determine if there is such a thing as truth apart from cultural and personal preferences, we must acknowledge that we are then aiming to discover something greater than ourselves, something that transcends culture and individual inclinations. To do this is to look beyond ourselves and outside of ourselves. In essence, it means we are looking for God. God would be truth, the absolute and true essence of being and reality who is the author of all truth. If you are interested in truth beyond yourself, then you must look to God. "I am the truth" For the Christian, the ultimate expression of truth is found in the Bible, in Jesus who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6). Of course, most philosophers and skeptics will dismiss His claim, but for the Christian, He is the mainstay of hope, security, and guidance. Jesus, who walked on water, claimed to be divine, rose from the dead, and said that He was the truth and the originator of truth. If Jesus is wrong, then we should ignore Him. But, if He is right, then it is true that we should listen to Him. The eyewitnesses wrote what they saw. They were with Him. They watched Him perform many miracles, heal the sick, calm a storm with a command, and even rise from the dead. Either you believe or dismiss these claims. If you dismiss them, that is your prerogative. But, if you accept them, then you are faced with decisions to make about Jesus. What will you believe about Him? What will you decide about Him? Is He true? Is what He said true? Truth conforms to reality. Jesus performed many miracles and rose from the dead.