Soli Deo Gloria: The Theory of Relativity...

5/16/08

The Theory of Relativity...

Erick said...: Recently I have been faced with the issue of relativism. You know the debate between relative truth: "What is true for me may not be true for you." Could anyone clarify what is relativism and how you would proceed to explain the faults it has to a relativist? And ultimately how you would lead that person to Christ from there?

13 comments:

Freddy said...: Thank you Remy for posting Erick's question on relativism. I hope that you don't mind that I address Erick since he is the one asking this question.

Erick you said,

"Could anyone clarify what is relativism.."

To understand relativism I think it would be helpful to understand "postmodernism" or "postmodernity". Why? Because relativism comes on the heels of postmodernism. So what is postmodernism? Postmodernism in short states that there is no such thing as truth, meaning, or morality. You see this a lot in the college or university setting. Many
professors are postmodernists, and thus leads them to what you would call the "theory of relativity" or relativism. This is why your question is so important. There are many christian students who leave high school and are on fire for our Lord but then they encounter professor after professor who mocks or challenges their faith in Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, many christian college students end up questioning their faith and all too often deny their faith altogether and become either atheists or agnostics. A good example of this would be Richard Dawkins. Most atheists or "hatetheists" as brother Ravi Zacharias calls them, grew up in the church and it was in college when a professor challenged their faith and before they knew it they had already walked away from the faith.

I believe Berny said it best in a response to another post:

Young people these days are getting Nietzsche, Dawkins, and Marx (among others) at high schools and universities while the church gives them Rick Warren or Rob Bell in return. Sometimes the church doesn't give them anyone at all but their pastoral staff! Any wonder why the faith of so many is being demolished at these academic institutions?

Now to your question, what is relativism. When someone says "that is true for you but not for me" all they are really saying is that there is no such thing as absolute truth. But there is a problem. The person making that claim that there is no such thing as absolute truth is using an absolute truth, "everything is relative, what is true for you may not be true for me" to defend his/her position. In other words, to take up the position of relativism is self-defeating.

For instance, if I tell you that I believe Jesus Christ to be the Way, Truth, and the Life, and that no one can come to Father except by Him and you respond saying that that may be true for me but not for you; you have just shot down my absolute truth with your absolute truth, namely that everything is relative. That is why pointing out this error to someone is important because if the person can see that there is such a thing as absolute truth then you can actually begin a dialogue on the same playing field.

Once you are able to establish the foundation that there is such a thing as an absolute truth you must now compare each truth to that of reality. Any absolute truth claim must conform to that of reality and be coherent in its explanation. There is more to this but I don't want to bombard you with so much information.

Check out RZIM (see the link on the right) and also carm.org (click here)

I hope I have answered your question in a clear way. I look forward to having more of these conversations.

Soli Deo Gloria; May 18, 2008 at 10:50 AM
dogfreid said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 18, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Remy said...: Hey Erick, Freddy did such a good job of giving you some background information and getting right down to the point with the answer. It's as plain and simple as he put it and the resources he gave you are great.

Your question has caused me to attempt to see things from another perspective. The situation it seems that you're in is so personal. It's one thing to say philosophically what the proper response to that problem is, but it's another to have that person standing in front of you and you trying to relate that truth to him. Surely, it becomes all the more personal when we read that no one can come to the Father unless He draws him. (John 6:44) But that is how the Holy Spirit uses us. To draw people unto Him.

I'm trying to remember what I thought regarding this point before I was saved. How would I have responded? What would I now do in your shoes? More importantly, what would God want me to do? I think that the most that you can do for your friend is pray for him and be patient with him. Show him the love of Christ and remind him that you do not have the answers to everything, but that you know the One who does. Intellectual arguments aren't what ultimately bring people to a saving knowledge of Christ. Yet, if your friend is willing to listen then go ahead and remove the intellectual obstacles that keep him from seeing Christ with his heart. If he's not willing to listen then wait in love for the opportune time so that you would not find yourself casting your pearls to pigs.

To add to what Freddy so clearly put I want to leave you with a few of my thoughts and some quotes from C.S. Lewis. I think the other resources Freddy gave you might be more practical than these, but these helped me a lot.

When a person makes the statement "what is true for me may not be true for you" he is in jeopardy of contradicting himself if he doesn't define what type of truth is being discussed. For example, the speed of light is 3 * 10^8 m/s. When measuring light in terms of what we define as a meter and what we define as a second this is the speed that is calculated. Granted, I can change my perspective and measure light in miles per hour and I get a measurement of approx. 186,000 mi/h. Now both of these measurements are based on different standards, but the the speed of light remains the same either way. The frequency of blue light will always remain the same. The acceleration due to gravity will always be what it is. These are constants that define the parameters of our Universe that as far as we know are unchanging. And if they do change then we observe that the change occurs due to other known, unchanging laws. Because we can hold these "mathematical" truths to remain the same then we can perform the calculations and discoveries we make about the Universe. These truths do not change. These are absolute truths.

There are other truths that are relative. For example, (I get this straight from Lewis) in the United States the 'truth' is that we drive on the "right" side of the road. In England, the 'truth' is that they drive on the "left" side of the road. This is a relative truth. This truth is relative because it is a convention created by man, thus man defines its parameters. On the other hand, 'mathematical or scientific' truths are not created by man but are intrinsic to the created order of the Universe and thus man's "perspective" does not alter them in any way. They are absolute.

Now, your friend's question must be further derived. If he means that mathematical truths are relative then he is faithfully going against observable constants. He might argue that perhaps our senses interpret these constants a certain way and that is why we see them the way that we do, but they may in fact be otherwise with people whose senses are wired differently. This fallacy immediately falls apart because he is undermining his natural ability to determine what is true using his senses/intellect and if so then he cannot make the statement that "truth is relative" because he cannot trust his own sense to make that observation. He cannot even trust his own sense to know that no one else can make the opposite observation. So he finds himself a blubbering individual that cannot tell his left from his right. Now, of course, this isn't the case. He doesn't doubt the truths of the Universe otherwise he would drown in the fear that one day the molecules beneath him will stop holding him up and he will sink to the core of the Earth. Furthermore, if our senses cause us to view something a certain way each time then there must be something constant and absolute about the object that we are observing.

What your friend probably means is that Moral truth is relative. So now we have to determine if Moral truth is an absolute truth or intrinsic Law of the Universe, or is it one of man's conventions or creations that can be changed and determined by man.

I will now use some quotes from Lewis and some from Ravi later to proceed with my point:

"There are two reasons for saying it (Moral truths) belongs to the same class a mathematics. The first is that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great...think of a country where people are admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed with regards to what people you ought to be unselfish to...But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first...The other reason is this. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all believe that some moralities are better than others...The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another...You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others."

... If man determines morality then as Ravi says "which man? Hitler? Stalin? Hefner?"

This takes us back to what Freddy pointed out. Someone that says that "truth is relative" (though he must define what truths he is speaking of) is saying in other words that there is no absolute truths. Yet, he himself is making an absolute truth that "truth is relative."

Here are some ways Paul Copan suggests you could respond:

*If my belief is only true for me, then 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 that 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!

Finally, I leave you with this quote from yours truly:

"A person that says that truth is relative places himself unwittingly at a crossroads. To his left lies the road of relativity. To his right lies the road of absolutism. Yet because he has no compass by which to guide him he cannot choose either road."; May 18, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Freddy said...: Remy, that is absolutely phenomenal. Wait, is that an absolute statement?

You said,

This truth is relative because it is a convention created by man, thus man defines its parameters. On the other hand, 'mathematical or scientific' truths are not created by man but are intrinsic to the created order of the Universe and thus man's "perspective" does not alter them in any way. They are absolute.

can't agree with you any more.

I also appreciate the distinction between the philosophical and personal. Ultimately, prayer is what is most needed. Praying that the Holy Spirit would convict the individual of righteousness is where the battles are won or lost. It must always be the Lord that does it as you quoted John 6:44.

Corrie Ten Boom once said that her Father lived a life that would show fruit that made the world hungry and salt that made the world thirsty. Erick, continue to depend upon our Lord for guidance and wisdom as He continues to do the work in you and through you.

For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved by His life Romans 5:10

Soli Deo Gloria; May 18, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Freddy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 18, 2008 at 11:01 PM
dogfreid said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 19, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Erick said...: Thank you guys for all of your input. I am grasping what relativism is in its most simple form and in its broadest sense. My friend and I speak weekly at work and he has begun to realize that he is not in actuality a relativist but an agnostic, not sure of what is truth or which God is the true God. The issue of relative truth versus absolute truth is something that came up and I was pondering for some time, but the issue has switched gears and now my friend's soul hangs in the balance as he decides which God to follow. To put it simply, "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (II Corinthians 4:4) My brother in Christ, who is also my coworker, and I pray for our friend as well as our other coworkers every time we go to work. It is a difficult situation and I am constantly reminded of what Ravi Zacharias said and I think Freddy quoted in an earlier post: "Apologetics is the seasoning and the Gospel is the main course; too much seasoning can make the main course insipid." In the end, prayer is where the battle for souls is won.

Now for the discussion on relativism to continue, Berny said,

"What I'm trying to show you is that what you're up against is not alethiological relativism but one of the following: cultural relativism, ethical subjectivism, or religious pluralism."

I would think that ethical subjectivism is what I am concerned with most. The discussion with my coworker began when we were discussing good and evil. He made the comment that good and evil are relative. Are they? Why or why not? Why is the Bible the supreme authority on good and evil? What about the Quran, for example?; May 19, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Remy said...: Hey Berny, you know I love you man and I admire you, but can you please explain some of that terminology you used. I feel like you're throwing around some pretty big words and it's hard to tell if you're using them in order to sound smart when simpler terms would suffice or if that's the way you really speak. I know the problem really lies on me because I haven't spent more time with you to get to know you in a more personal way. I want to hang out with you so that I have a better understanding of you and be blessed by knowing another brother in Christ. But in the mean time can you clarify some of those things please? (and bless me academically in the process! :-) ); May 19, 2008 at 1:31 PM
dogfreid said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 19, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Remy said...: What does alethiological and utilitarian refer to?

By the way thank you for kindly wanting to clarify. :-) I honestly appreciate it.; May 19, 2008 at 11:23 PM
dogfreid said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 20, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Remy said...: Man! Thank you so much Berny. That's cool stuff. :-) I hope it wasn't too much trouble for you. You have no idea how much I learn from you clarifying thing slike that. Thanks again.; May 20, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Freddy said...: Berny, thank you for clarifying. It saved me some time having to research those terms. I too, like Remy, have learned a great deal with that small explanation of the terms. I love philosophy so keep 'em comin'

Your brother in Christ!; May 20, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)