XnForums

Like an old apple, relativism may look good on the surface but it is rotten at the core. Among its problems:

Absolutely Relative?

Most relativists really believe relativism is true for everybody, not just for them. But that is the one thing they cannot hold if they are really relativists. For a relative truth is just true for me but not necessarily for anyone else. So, the relativist who thinks relativism is true for everyone is an absolutist. Such a person believes in at least one absolute truth. The dilemma is this: a consistent relativist cannot say "It is an absolute truth for everyone that this truth is only relatively true." Nor can the person say, "It is only relatively true that relativism is true." If it is only relatively true, then relativism may be false for some or all others. Why then should I accept it as true? Either the claim that truth is relative is an absolute claim, which would falsify the relativist position, or it is an assertion that can never really be made, because every time you make it you have to add another "relatively." This begins an infinite regress that will never pay off in a real statement.

The only way the relativist can avoid the painful dilemma of relativism is to admit that there are at least some absolute truths. As noted, most relativists believe that relativism is absolutely true and that everyone should be a relativist. Therein lies the self-destructive nature of relativism. The relativist stands on the pinnacle of an absolute truth and wants to relativize everything else.

A World of Contradictions

If relativism were true, then the world would be full of contradictory conditions. For if something is true for me but false for you, then opposite conditions exist. For if I say "There is milk in the refrigerator" and you say "there is not any milk in the refrigerator"—and we both are right, then there must be and not be milk in the refrigerator at the same time and in the same sense. But that is impossible. So, if truth were relative, then an impossible would be actual.

In the religious realm it would mean that Billy Graham is telling the truth when he says, "God exists," and Madalyn Murray O’Hare is also right when she claims, "God does not exist." But these two statements cannot both be true. If one is true, then the other is false. And since they exhaust the only possibilities, one of them must be true.

No Wrongs and No Rights

If truth is relative, then no one is ever wrong—even when they are. As long as something is true to me, then I’m right even when I’m wrong. The drawback is that I could never learn anything either, because learning is moving from a false belief to a true one—that is, from an absolutely false belief to an absolutely true one. The truth is that absolutes are inescapable.

Answering Objections

Relativists have leveled several objections to the view of truth as absolute. The following are the most important:

No Absolute Knowledge

It is objected that truth cannot be absolute since we do not have an absolute knowledge of truths. Even most absolutists admit that most things are known only in terms of degrees of probability. How, then, can all truth be absolute?

We can be absolutely sure of some things. I am absolutely sure that I exist. In fact, my existence is undeniable. For I would have to exist in order to make the statement, "I do not exist." I am also absolutely sure that I cannot exist and not exist at the same time. And that there are no square circles. And that 3+2=5.

There are many more things of which I am not absolutely certain. But even here the relativist is misguided in rejecting absolute truth simply because we lack absolute evidence that some things are true. The truth can be absolute no matter what our grounds for believing it. For example, if it is true that Sidney, Australia, is on the Pacific Ocean, then it is absolutely true no matter what my evidence or lack of evidence may be. An absolute truth is absolutely true in itself, no matter what evidence there is. Evidence, or the lack thereof, does not change a fact. And truth is what corresponds to the facts. The truth doesn’t change just because we learn something more about it.

In-between Truths

Another objection is that many things are comparative—like relative sizes such as shorter and taller. As such they cannot be absolute truths, since they change depending on the object to which they relate. For example, some people are good compared to Hitler but evil as compared to Mother Teresa. Contrary to the claim of relativists, in-between things do not disprove absolutism. For the facts that "John is short in relation to an NBA (National Basketball Association) player," and "John is tall compared to a jockey" are absolutely true for all times and all people. John is in-between in size, and it depends on which one to whom he is compared whether he is shorter or taller. Nonetheless, it is absolutely true that John (being five feet ten inches) is short compared to most basketball players and tall compared to the majority of jockeys. The same thing is true of other in-between things, such as, warmer or colder, and better or worse.

No New Truth (or Progress)

If truth never changes, then there can’t be any new truth. This would mean that no progress is possible. But we do come to know new truths. That is what scientific discovery is all about. In response to this, "new truth" can be understood in two ways. It might mean "new to us," like a new discovery in science. But that is only a matter of us discovering an "old" truth. After all, the law of gravity was there long before Isaac Newton. Many truths have always been there, but we are just finding out about them. The other way we might understand "new truth" is that something new has come into existence that makes it possible to make a new statement about it that is only then true for the first time. That’s no problem either. When January 1, 2020, arrives, a new truth will be born. Until that day it will not be true to say, "This is January 1, 2020." But when that happens it will be true for all people and places forever more. So "old" truths don’t change and neither do "new" truths when they come to pass. Once it is true, it is always true—for everyone.

Truth and Growth in Knowledge

It is also objected that knowledge of truth is not absolute, since we grow in truth. What is true today may be false tomorrow. The progress of science is proof that truth is constantly changing. This objection fails to note that it is not the truth that is changing but our understanding of it. When science truly progresses, it does not move from an old truth to a new truth, but from error to truth. When Copernicus argued that the earth moves around the sun and not the reverse, truth did not change. What changed was the scientific understanding about what moves around what.

Narrow Absolutes

Of course truth is narrow. There is only one answer for what is 4+4. It is not 1. It is not 2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10 or any other number. It is 8 and only 8. That’s narrow, but it is correct.

Non-Christians often claim that Christians are narrow-minded, because they claim that Christianity is true and all non-Christian systems are false. However, the same is true of non-Christians who claim that what they view as truth is true, and all opposing beliefs are false. That is equally narrow. The fact of the matter is that if C (Christianity) is true, then it follows that all non-C is false. Likewise, if H (say, Humanism) is true, then all non-H is false. Both views are equally narrow. That’s the way truth is. Each truth claim excludes contradictory truth claims. Christianity is no more narrow than is any other set of beliefs, whether atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, or pantheism.

Dogmatic Absolutes

The claim that those who believe in absolute truth are dogmatic misses the point. If all truth is absolute—true for all people, times, and places—everyone who claims anything is true is "dogmatic." Even the relativist who claims relativism is true is dogmatic. For the person who claims that relativism is absolutely true is particularly dogmatic. This person claims to own the only absolute truth that can be uttered, namely, that everything else is relative.

Something important is overlooked in this charge of dogmatism. There is a big difference between the pejorative charge that belief in absolute truth is dogmatic and the manner in which someone may hold to this belief. No doubt the manner with which many absolutists have held to and conveyed their beliefs has been less than humble. However, no agnostic would consider it a telling argument against agnosticism that some agnostics communicate their beliefs in a dogmatic manner.

Nonetheless, there is an important distinction to keep in mind. Truth is absolute, but our grasp of it is not. Just because there is absolute truth does not mean that our understanding of it is absolute. This fact in itself should cause the absolutists to temper convictions with humility. For while truth is absolute, our understanding of absolute truth is not absolute. As finite creatures, we grow in our understanding of truth.

Summary

Truth may be tested in many ways but it should be understood in only one way. There is one reality, to which statements or ideas must conform in order to be regarded as true. There may be many different ways to defend different truth claims, but there is really only one proper way to define truth, namely, as correspondence. The confusion between the nature of truth and the verification of truth is at the heart of the rejection of a correspondence view of truth.

Likewise, there is a difference between what truth is and what truth does. Truth is correspondence, but truth has certain consequences. Truth itself should not be confused with its results or with its application. The failure to make this distinction leads to wrong views of the nature of truth. Truth is that which corresponds to reality or to the state of affairs it purports to describe. And falsehood is what does not correspond.

Whatcha think?

http://www.Ankerberg.com/Articles/theological-dictionary/TD1099W3.htm

clean'

So, I take it that your truth™ is the absolute truth while all others are mistaken? Gee, how incredibly fortunate for you that out of all the billions of people who live on this earth that you just so happen to be privy to the absolute truth™. All because you were fortunately born in a country where that truth™ was the dominate belief. If you were born in India that exclusive absolute truth™ would be found in the Gita. The few, the proud.... that says it all I guess.

So who are you trying to convince, Clean? I think you are really trying to convince yourself. Deep down you are insecure about your beliefs. This is natural for a Christian though they would never admit it. This is because Christianity is inherently an insecure religion that breeds insecurity in its adherents. This is why it must beat everyone over the brow with the "good news" which is manifestly not "good news".

Christianity could never coexist with other religions like, say, Buddhism does. It must dominate rather than cooperate.

Why not try and build better people for a better humanity and a better future? Instead it is always "My Truth™" is the absolute Truth™ all others are damned.

As for me and the alleged dilemma posed above I DO believe in absolute truths, but mine tend to be broad and universally acknowledged such as the primacy of love and compassion as opposed to more narrow things that are found in the very specific christian doctrines. It is not a universally acknowledged absolute truth that Jesus died for my sins, for instance.

So who's absolute Truth's™ are true and what makes you so cock sure that you have found it?

If what you're saying is, um, true, Jedi. Where do you get off telling Clean Sword he is wrong? In other words, how can you justify that what you said is true?

I mean it sounds like your logic is running around in circles. Are you saying the only truth is that there is no truth? I don't get it. Please explain.

I'm not the one running in circles, I can assure you, MB. Please pay attention to what I do say and what I do not say, okay?
Did I tell him he's wrong? Did I say that I had a handle on the truth? All I was saying, in case you, um, missed it, Messingerboy was that it is not always obvious what truths are absolute. So why do people like John Ankerberg so arrogantly think they have just so happened to have found it and everybody else needs to be corrected?

Have you found the absolute truth, MB, or are you just pissing in the wind like everyone else who says they have found it?

pisssing pissssssing......................

"So why do people like John Ankerberg so arrogantly think they have just so happened to have found it and everybody else needs to be corrected?"

I was surprised by an article on his website that deals with church business and members who sin. Although I disagree with how the writer interprets "witnesses".

Truth within the church for church members is not truth for others outside the church. Only members of the church need correcting.

Church administration policy and protocol includes excommunication of the offender[sinner].
See: ankerberg.com/Articles/biblical-prophecy/BPO59W1.htm

Did you even read the article?

"My truth" as as you stated it, is not my truth. Absolute truth is what is, no matter what
your perception of it is. A belief may or not be true. An absolute truth does not need to be universally acknowledged ...or even acknowledged at all..

Absolute truth is true for everyone whether they live in India or Vancouver.
1+1=2 is an absolute truth whether you are a buddist or a christian.
The flat earth theory was well accepted and almost universally acknowledged, but
it wasn't true. The universe was created or it was not. That is an absolute truth.

No one owns absolute truth....There is not a truth for you and a different truth for me.
What one believes or acknowledges isn't what makes it true.

The truth is objective..It stands on its own whether you believe it or not.

The fact that I believe that Christianity is the true faith does not, in itself, make it true.
It is only my belief that it is true is when it affects my life.

You and I could believe many things, and they could all be true or none of them be true.
What we believe doesn't establish truth, even for ourselves.

What we believe affects our lives, but it doesn't affect the truth.
A baby could be adopted from birth. He believes that he is the natural born child
of his adoptive parents. He lives and dies believing that he's the natural born child, but, that doesn't
change the truth that he was adopted.

The absolute truth is that the God of the Bible is the only true God or He isn't. If He is,
then what I believe is actually the truth. If He isn't, then what I believe is wrong,
but it doesn't change the truth.

clean'

Ah, yes.....I babble, therefore I am.

Heard that one before.

Clean, I read the article, perhaps a little too fast, but I do not disagree with the basic idea that there are absolute truths. I think however that whatever they are they must be broadly defined. I only think I know of a couple of absolutes, I mentioned them before, love and compassion. I have just thought of a few others: in life there is suffering, what the Buddha called "dukkha" or "unsatisfactoriness/unease"; That suffering arises from the ignorance of the true nature of material existence (the true nature is that it is impermanent and constantly changing); that suffering can be eliminated; that there is a path that leads to the elimination of suffering. This is called the "four noble truths".

I believe them to be universal, but I know that not everyone agrees with these truths.

You see, my previous tirade is because of what gets my ire. It is when people think they have found some absolute truth and commence to ramming it down everybody's throat. I know John Ankerberg's ministry is heavily critical of all things that are not Christian, such as "The New Age" other religions and the like. So I see him as someone who is "cock sure" that he has found the one and only truth, and I find that deeply unattractive.

What absolutes do you think exist?

I think we're talking past each other on this...
We're not on the same page about absolute truth.

By the way, John Ankerberg did not write this article.. it was written by Norman Geisler.

One absolute that exist is the statement.."God exists or He doesn't exist."

I believe that He exist, maybe your don't believe He does or aren't sure that He exists.

If you don't believe that He exists, then one of us is wrong. But our disagreement doesn't
determine the absolute truth of that statement. The statement is true, absolutely true.
That there is love, compassion and suffering in the world is an absolute truth. We have all
witnessed it. But to contrast that with what Geisler said is confusing. I don't see any
contradiction. Absolute truth is narrow by its definition. But, that doesn't make it any less
compassionate or loving than any other "truth".
If I said to someone, "Don't jump off of this ten story building. If you do, you will die."
Barring a miracle, that is an absolute truth. That is a narrow statement, but it is full
of compassion. I don't want that person to die.
Absolute truth is not what we adhere to.
Absolute truth is what is, whether we adhere to it or not. Geisler is not stating that he
has the absolute truth. He is merely stating what an absolute truth is. No one has
the absolute truth, they can only discover it. It was there all the time.


More later...it's getting late..

clean'

I disagree with most of what you said there and I think you are looking past what I am trying to say not that we are talking past each other. But I'll leave it at that. well maybe one thought... what good is an absolute truth if everyone's definition is different? Why even talk of it? And you know darn well that Ankerberg, Geisler and those like them think the gospel is the absolute truth. I disagree with him and you, so what good is an absolute truth? You say it is what it is whether we believe in it or not or even we know it or not, so what good is talking about it? You say it is narrow by definition... who's definition? Yours?

What good is an absolute truth if knowledge of it is subject to so much opinion and no one can establish the veracity of it? That is why people say there are no absolutes. As contradictory as that statement is it does have a certain amount of experience behind it.

So people who blather, and here is my point that you keep reading past, people who blather on about absolute truth are just making an annoying noise.

Here, here, Jedi. Well said!

I'm not so sure there are any 'absolute' truths, especially as it pertains to intellectual and/or spiritual pursuits. But I would submit that there are many self-evident truths that uphold certain foundational premises such as, for example, the sanctity of life and the obtained results when we promote such sanctity.

Other than that, most truths are a crap shoot, often being relevant only to the immediate circumstances.

Come on CS,
Can't you see the contradictions in what you wrote? If god exists in your mind, not in mine then the statement is not absolute. It is simply a cheesy example of the "False Dichotomy."


It is interesting to watch the autoerotoism(mental masturbation) that some go through to try convince themselves and others of things that are not true.

Whether He exists in your mind is irrelevant. What you perceive to be
truth may or may not be true. It has no bearing whatever on what is true..A certain thing
can be absolutely true even if nobody believes it...

If you don't believe that God exists. Then, it absolutely true that you don't believe that
He exists. But does that mean that God doesn't exist? Does it mean that He does exists?

No, in both cases. Whether He exists or not isn't determined about we believe. So the statement..."God exists or He doesn't exist" is still true.

You say that I have given only two choices.....Ok....give me another choice in that statement that will have more meaning for you. "God exist or He doesn't exist or .....?"
If you believe that there is a third choice between existing and not existing, would you
please give it to me?

clean'

Doc alluded to this earlier.
The third choice is simply this: Like Unicorns, the abstraction you refer to as god is a creation of the human mind, and exists no where else. This third option invalidates the false dicotomy of the statement: "One absolute that exist is the statement.."God exists or He doesn't exist.", and renders it false. And your assertion: "Whether He exists in your mind is irrelevant." means you must provide clear and convincing evidence for existence in some other location. Can you do that?