by
Roger Smalling, D.Min
Any other premise is self-invalidating. Take, for instance,
the thought: Truth does not exist. Is
that statement a truth? If so, a truth exists and the statement, truth does not exist, is refuted.
A labyrinth of contradictions greet us the instant we adopt
any other premise than, truth exists. Trying to make sense
out of anything else is like chewing gristle. The more we try, the tougher it
gets. It canÕt be swallowed.
Rarely do people blatantly say, Òtruth does not exist.Ó Yet
we frequently encounter the statement in another form: ÒTruth is relative to
the individual.Ó
The relativist insists that when a person claims to have
perceived a truth, he is really observing a process going on in his own mind, since
there are no objective realities. This amounts to the same thing as the premise
that truth does not exist, and is
just as easily refuted.
Example: If truth is Òrelative to the individual.Ó then
what about the truth that truth is relative to the individual? Is that an
absolute or relative truth? If absolute, then there exists a truth that is not
relative to any individual. If it is relative, then the premise is not valid.
The stock phrase, Òthat is true for you,Ó is simply
nonsense.
Some relativists assert that reality itself is just a state
of mind. That is, reality is altered or controlled by our state of consciousness.
This is the basic premise behind occult mind-science, which leads to severe
mental and personality disturbances in some people. Nevertheless, this type of
thinking thoroughly permeates our culture.
The educational system, right from primary school through
college, is rife with it: Values clarification, the Òopen classroom,Ó and
certain social studies programs are samples of ideas invented and pushed by
relativists.
It forms the basis for much of our popular media right down
to some of the cartoons. These show heroes altering reality by mind power and
just imagining things into existence.
No one can logically sustain the notion that truth is
relative. It is self-contradicting and requires no further refutation. Like the
proverbial snake that bites itself and dies, relativism kills itself.
We
can kill it another way: Before a person begins to
reason about any philosophy whatsoever, he must accept logic as the valid
criterion for evaluating truth.
If anyone wishes to question the validity of logic as a
criterion for truth, he must do so without the assistance of logic. Failure to
do so deprives him of the right to reason about anything, regardless of what
the philosophy might be, including relativism.
Is it absolutely true that reason is valid? If so, then absolute
truth exists. At this point, the
relativist crashes into the wall of reality. He forfeits the right to use
reason to validate his denial of absolutes.
The only way a relativist can be consistent is to avoid
thinking. Or, if he does reason, he must be careful not to consider any of his
conclusions as absolute, but rather, his own personal perceptions. On what
basis then would he then promote them to others?
In fact, he is deprived of the right to even consider it
absolutely true that his conclusions are not absolutely true! Relativism is a legitimate
philosophy as long as one is careful not to think, act, or speak.
Relativism is so far from reality that anyone attempting to
follow the premises to their logical conclusions could be a danger to himself
and others. After all, a driver who imagines an automobile bearing down on him
is not really there unless he believes so, should not have a license. I would
hate to be a passenger in a vehicle driven by a consistent relativist.
Even worse, he might imagine himself a bird on no other
grounds than thinking makes it so. This in itself is harmless until he tries to
fly off a building. If he is not restrained, his philosophy could be
short-lived.
At the risk of appearing facetious, I ask: What else is a
mentally ill person other than a consistent relativist? Most relativists donÕt
end up incarcerated for their own safety only because they do not live
consistently with their philosophy.
Schizophrenia is defined as a separation from reality. The
schizophrenic is characterized by a dogged refusal to recognize any discrepancy
between his state of mind and reality. In practical terms, not only are psychologists
disqualified from being relativists, but they must also classify relativism as
a form of schizophrenia.
The absolute nature of reality must exist in the mind of
the psychologist before he can declare anyone to be mentally ill. But if the
psychologist is a relativist, what then is his frame of reference? If he has
none, then on what grounds can he make such a declaration?
If relativism is correct, the patient has just as much
right to declare the psychologist insane. Relativism is a mental aberration, or
schizophrenia is a philosophy.
When we say truth is absolute, we mean truth is independent
of human perception for its existence. By truth
we mean of course, that which exists whether
we perceive it or not. Having established objective reality, we can draw a
number of conclusions about truth in general.
Since truth is absolute, it must also be universal. Since
truth is independent from human perception, then it doesn't matter whether we
are talking about the perceptions of only one individual or of millions. It is
independent in either case since the ground of truth is reality itself and not
our perceptions of it. For example, it was once universally believed that the
earth was flat. But this was merely a unanimous misperception. The world is as a
round then as it is today.
The nature of truth, not a human ability to identify it, is
reality. At all times, we must clarify that distinction. Obviously people do
not perceive events the same way. This doesnÕt change the nature of the event.
When we are talking about perception, then we can discuss who perceives the
event most accurately. But this is different from the facts of the event itself.
Since truth is universal, it applies to every individual in
the world. It may not have the same importance or relevance to everyone. Nevertheless,
a fact is a fact, regardless of who perceives it.
Therefore,
all truth is universal, eternal and absolute.
Example: It will be true forever that at this time you were reading this
article. This fact will be true tomorrow as well as a billion years from now.
Sometimes relativists use examples from science to try to
refute this. They refer to various theories held as fact throughout centuries,
but which have since been proven wrong. Galileo disproved Copernican astronomy.
Einsteinium relativity has overthrown Newtonian physics.
Such examples fail to distinguish between reality and
perception of reality. No scientist today would ever say that in Copernicus'
day the sun revolved around the earth. That's why such examples can be thrown
out of court as evidence.
The same is true with relativistic attempts to point out
the differences in diverse cultures. It makes
no real difference whether it is one individual misperceiving reality or a
whole society. Error is error.
If, for example, God exists, then atheistic societies are
in error. If God does not exist, then theistic societies are in error. Since GodÕs
existence is not dependent upon human perception or belief, one is right and
one is wrong.
Truth therefore is absolute, universal and eternal. By this
we mean truth is independent of our perception for its existence. While relativists
protest this conclusion, they are unable to show how it can be logically refuted.
But then, logic is not their forte. Nor is it of value.
Having established the nature of truth, we can now turn our
attention to a related and very important matter: Morality.
Just as the nature of truth is absolute, so too is
morality. Otherwise the issue of lying would have nothing to do with truth. If
someone were to dispute this, we can ask if what he is saying is absolutely
true, or if he is merely talking relatively.
If there exists an inseparable link between truth and
morality, and the example of lying shows there is, then whatever is true about
truth itself must also be true of morality in general. Moral relativism dies on
the same knife as philosophical relativism. Absolute, universal and eternal
moral laws must exist along with absolute truth.
This means some things are wrong regardless of who likes it
or not. Universal moral laws are applicable to every society regardless of
whether or not a culture acknowledges them.
Finally, moral truths are eternal. Their absolute and
universal nature can never change. It does no good to say, Òtimes have changed.Ó
Time may change but truth and morality logically cannot.
Again, we are not talking about perception. ManÕs opinion
as to what is right or wrong vary considerably between individuals and cultures.
This in itself does not constitute evidence that morality is relative to the
individual or culture. It only means some people are more correct morally than
others, since both truth and morality must be logical absolutes.
Now, just because we have shown truth and morality are
absolutes, does not necessarily prove someone knows what they are. Observable and
verifiable facts exist or we could not draw conclusions about anything, or even
think about morality, nor apply any of its precepts.
At this point I am not attempting to demonstrate what is
right or wrong in any context. I am merely presenting the inherent
irrationality of relativism, whether philosophical or moral.
Further, I am not devaluing human perceptions. I am showing
that truth and morality are not dependent on our perceptions for their
existence or validity.
In conclusion, we have shown why those who esteem logic
must abandon relativism regardless of its disguises. It has no rational defense.
Those who defend it, declare they place no value on reason.
Having shown truth to be absolute, universal and eternal,
we are now free to discover fact and come to unshakeable truth.
Relativism in the Church
Relativism is an all-pervasive philosophy in our times. It
dominates the educational system, permeates television programming, influences
decisions of the higher courts and is rapidly forming the fabric of modern culture.
Christians must be exceptionally carefully not to let it
infiltrate the Church. It wears many disguises. One comes in the form of the Òbalance
of truthÓ idea. Christian leaders anxious to reconcile believers with
differences currently use it. But it plays right into the hands of our enemies.
We may compare opposing concepts, but we cannot balance truths. That's inherently
irrational. The fundamental principle behind all logic is that whatever is true
cannot be false at the same time. In philosophy this is called A is not non-A and simply means that a
thing cannot be itself and not itself at the same time. Without this basic principle,
logic is impossible. Since any given truth can't be itself and its opposite
simultaneously, it cannot be balanced.
A church group was discussing whether salvation is by grace
alone or if man assisted through some merit of his own. Although the merit view needed polite but firm
correction, this is not what happened. Instead, the pastor concluded, ÒI see a
balance of truth here,Ó and then proceeded with a discourse on how scripture
contains room for a wide variety of opinions.
ÒAfter all,Ó he said, Òthe truth probably lies somewhere in
the middle.Ó Some nodded in agreement without realizing that the pastor just
undermined the absolute truths Christianity stands for.
Suggesting the Bible is too obscure to resolve essential
issues was bad enough. This pastor implied that truth is largely a question of
personal perspective. His attempt to conciliate the congregation propelled him into
the trap of relativism...the denial of absolute and objective truth. He failed
to see that the consequences of this were worse than the dispute he was trying
to quell.
Can there be varying facets to the same truth? Certainly.
The deity of Christ is an example. It involves the virgin birth, the
relationship between Christ's two natures, his preexistence and so forth. Yet the
truth about his deity can never be balanced. To do so would involve an
absurdity such as: ÒChrist is God and not God, and the truth lies somewhere in
the middle.Ó Some issues are simply not negotiable and one of them is the
absolute nature of truth.
The early Christians understood that absolute truth is
worth fighting for. In Acts 15, this resulted in a heated discussion with the Judaizers.
Some acknowledged salvation by grace alone. Others claimed it is grace plus
law.
How fortunate this dispute didn't take place in the twenty-first
century! It might have sounded like this: ÒWell, I can see Paul's viewpoint.
But the circumcision group has some good thoughts, as well. I think we need to
realize that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. After all, let's
not go to extremes. We may never know for sure anyway. In the name of brotherly
love, let's all agree to disagree and leave in peace.Ó
Imagine if the reformers had held to relativism. Picture Martin
Luther saying, ÒI believe in justification by faith. I know some good folks
don't agree. If they're sincere and love the Lord, it doesnÕt really matter
what they believe. LetÕs be careful not to create divisions.Ó
Luther, Calvin, Knox and their contemporaries took a stand that
sounds extreme to the twenty-first century Christian. They felt absolute truth
was worth division, yes, even worth dying for. If we are sick of doctrinal
disputes, then we're sick of truth. And if we're sick of truth, then we are sick
indeed.
In the 1800Õs, a philosopher named Hegel proposed another
way to reason than the usual A is not
non-A. He suggested we add a third step called synthesis. This means we could take two mutually exclusive propositions,
such as Christ is God vs. Christ is not
God, put them opposite one another, and then pick some ÒgoodÓ out of each.
This would lead to a compromise, the synthesis,
which would then become a new proposition
A. The process could then continue from that point.
Hegel called the first premise, such as Christ is God, the thesis. The second premise, Christ
is not God, he would call the anti-thesis.
Thus, the synthesis is the blend
of the two.
This so-called logic is known today as the dialectic. Though it sounds politically
correct, it has a fatal defect. Who decides what is to be taken from the two
propositions to form the synthesis? Hegel
responded, Òthe individual!Ó And who determines what is the good? Again, the individual.
Do we see where Hegel led us? Truth no longer resided in
objective reality, but in the individual. Reality became whatever the
individual felt it was.
What makes this flaw fatal? No reason exists to say it must
an ÒindividualÓ who has the right to decide. Why should it be an individual who
does this and not a group, a society, a flip of the coin, God, or the
neighbor's dog? If we ask Hegel, the answer is repeated: It is the individual
who decides that it should be the individual. Result: Circular reasoning.
Clearly, the dialectic is not a form of logic at all. It is
anti-logic. It is intellectual suicide.
Does modern man stop at this irrationality? Hardly! Look at
the list of current movements based on the dialectic: Relativism, Communism,
Socialism, Secular Humanism, Existentialism and Psychiatry.
Pragmatic Relativism, the brainchild of American relativist,
John Dewey, is one of most influential philosophies in American education today
and one of the most damaging.
Now we see the trap Christians fall into once they attempt
to make truth subjective. The pastor who used the balance of truth approach was inadvertently teaching Christians to
think dialectically. Despite unfamiliarity with the terms, the influence is real.
Do we each have a right to our own opinion or doctrine? Not
if the Christian view of truth is correct. The right to an opinion on anything is
earned through evaluating evidence with consistent logic. This is just as true in
Christianity as any other facet of reality.
Smalling's
articles and essays are available at www.smallings.com