It is not uncommon for people to think that all religious beliefs can be true at the same time in the same respect. People are thought to be “too hard” if they think there is only one way that is true.
The “modern” moral relativism of Edward Westermarck (1862-1939) and G.E. Moore (1873 – 1958) has firm foundations in the ancient Anekantavada (Many sidedness) principle of Mahavira (c. 599 – 527 BC) which is a Jainism teaching. This assumes not only that “reality is perceived differently from different points of view” but also “that no single point of view is completely true”. Also believed is the assertion by Protagoras (c. 481 – 420 BC) that “man is the measure of all things”. As today’s philosophers and social scientists continue to question whether any absolute and objective standards exist pertaining to values, it’s not uncommon in our society to hear:
- Isn’t that true for you but not for me?
What is our first question? We ask, “What do you mean by that?” Let them clarify their own views. Once they have clarified their own claim, what is our second question? We ask, “How did you come to that conclusion?” This asks for their evidence. What do we do then? Listen. Listen to the reasons they provide. (Remember the mean face with covered ears and the magnifying glass.) And what else can we do? Ask follow-up questions. If they are saying all truth is relative, our questions to them may be, “Is that only true for you and not for me?”
In a video produced by Focus on the Family, a Universalist minister was asked about truth. Standing in a church with stained glass windows, she pointed at the windows and said that truth could be understood as something like light from the sun shining on us through the different stained-glass windows. As people sit inside the church each person, depending on their perspective, might see the light differently. In short, she felt that truth was relative to the individual. In relation to our question, she would have us believe that truth may be true for one and not for another.
What she didn’t mention was the source of light on the other side of those stained glass windows. Unfortunately for those in her church building, the stained glass windows were changing the light source so they were not seeing true light but were seeing filtered light. The filtered light represented truth that was true for each individual. In this case, filtered light is used to represent subjective truth, that is, something that is true based on the perception of each subject. However, what her congregation was not seeing was the unfiltered light. The colored glass was a filter between the people and the light source. In this analogy, the source light, the light on the other side of those windows, would represent objective truth. Something is an objective truth because it is true independent of our sense experience.
Another example of the difference between subjective and objective truth might be understood using fire or heat and human skin. We can tell a child over and over again to keep their hand out of a fire or away from something that is hot because touching it will get them burned. They may tell us that our belief about fire and skin is true for us, but not for them. Yet when they reach out and put their hand in the fire or touch a hot pot, they’ll find out pretty quick that we were providing an objective truth.
We can of course think of exceptions by changing the temperature and by changing the person. For instance, the skin of a well seasoned chef who has been handling hot pots over many years would have developed a tolerance for a certain amount of heat. In other words, someone could argue that the burning of skin is relative to the individual. However, there is an absolute point we could heat a pan to that would burn through even the toughest skin. These two conditions are known as objective or absolute truth and subjective or relative truth.
Some hold that all truth is relative. The overall worldview, that is, this way of thinking, is called relativism. It’s founded on the belief that truth is derived from the subject or truth is relative to a situation. You see and hear this view expressed in every part of our society as an attempt to justify a person’s or society’s actions due to circumstances. But, relativism just doesn’t pass the common sense test. As Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl pointed out in their book Relativism; Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, if you think about it, relativism has seven fatal flaws:
Let’s do a little mental aikido with the belief that “no single point of view is completely true”. If “no single point of view is completely true” is true, then can this point of view cannot be completely true? And if this point of view cannot be completely true, then it is true that, “a single point of view could be completely true”. Finally, if a point of view could be completely true, then the original view that “no single point of view is completely true” must be false. This is another argument that is self-defeating!
We admit that people may be different in their ability to think, may have individual physical capabilities, et cetera. But even though we think of truth as relative to the person (the subject) that particular truth is absolute. The wine connoisseur’s ability to taste certain elements in a vintage will be more refined than someone who has damaged taste buds (subjective truth), but the fact is, the wine does have certain elements in the wine which may be detected by a human (objective truth).
Can something be true for you but not for me?
We can know that truth is absolute not relative because contrary arguments are self-defeating.
The “modern” moral relativism of Edward Westermarck (1862-1939) and G.E. Moore (1873 – 1958) has firm foundations in the ancient Anekantavada (Many sidedness) principle of Mahavira (c. 599 – 527 BC) which is a Jainism teaching. This assumes not only that “reality is perceived differently from different points of view” but also “that no single point of view is completely true”. Also believed is the assertion by Protagoras (c. 481 – 420 BC) that “man is the measure of all things”. As today’s philosophers and social scientists continue to question whether any absolute and objective standards exist pertaining to values, it’s not uncommon in our society to hear:
- Isn’t that true for you but not for me?
What is our first question? We ask, “What do you mean by that?” Let them clarify their own views. Once they have clarified their own claim, what is our second question? We ask, “How did you come to that conclusion?” This asks for their evidence. What do we do then? Listen. Listen to the reasons they provide. (Remember the mean face with covered ears and the magnifying glass.) And what else can we do? Ask follow-up questions. If they are saying all truth is relative, our questions to them may be, “Is that only true for you and not for me?”
In a video produced by Focus on the Family, a Universalist minister was asked about truth. Standing in a church with stained glass windows, she pointed at the windows and said that truth could be understood as something like light from the sun shining on us through the different stained-glass windows. As people sit inside the church each person, depending on their perspective, might see the light differently. In short, she felt that truth was relative to the individual. In relation to our question, she would have us believe that truth may be true for one and not for another.
What she didn’t mention was the source of light on the other side of those stained glass windows. Unfortunately for those in her church building, the stained glass windows were changing the light source so they were not seeing true light but were seeing filtered light. The filtered light represented truth that was true for each individual. In this case, filtered light is used to represent subjective truth, that is, something that is true based on the perception of each subject. However, what her congregation was not seeing was the unfiltered light. The colored glass was a filter between the people and the light source. In this analogy, the source light, the light on the other side of those windows, would represent objective truth. Something is an objective truth because it is true independent of our sense experience.
Another example of the difference between subjective and objective truth might be understood using fire or heat and human skin. We can tell a child over and over again to keep their hand out of a fire or away from something that is hot because touching it will get them burned. They may tell us that our belief about fire and skin is true for us, but not for them. Yet when they reach out and put their hand in the fire or touch a hot pot, they’ll find out pretty quick that we were providing an objective truth.
We can of course think of exceptions by changing the temperature and by changing the person. For instance, the skin of a well seasoned chef who has been handling hot pots over many years would have developed a tolerance for a certain amount of heat. In other words, someone could argue that the burning of skin is relative to the individual. However, there is an absolute point we could heat a pan to that would burn through even the toughest skin. These two conditions are known as objective or absolute truth and subjective or relative truth.
Some hold that all truth is relative. The overall worldview, that is, this way of thinking, is called relativism. It’s founded on the belief that truth is derived from the subject or truth is relative to a situation. You see and hear this view expressed in every part of our society as an attempt to justify a person’s or society’s actions due to circumstances. But, relativism just doesn’t pass the common sense test. As Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl pointed out in their book Relativism; Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, if you think about it, relativism has seven fatal flaws:
- A relativist can never claim another is wrong. This is because the other person can just ask, “Isn’t my belief ‘true for me’?”
- A relativist can never complain about evil. Whenever a person does something, isn’t the person just following what they think is morally right?
- A relativist can never place blame or accept praise because placing blame mean “it was wrong” and praise means “it was right”. Neither right nor wrong is supposed to be true for the relativist.
- A relativist can never make charges of unfairness or injustice. Each requires a moral answer to what is “fair” and “just”. Without a moral compass, neither is supposed to be true for the relativist.
- A relativist can never improve your morality. The question, “What is moral?” cannot be logically defined by relativists who holds that morals are relative to the individual.
- A relativist can never hold a meaningful moral discussion. This is the same as the last issue. The question, “What is moral?” cannot be logically defined by relativists and still hold that morals are relative to the individual.
- A relativist can never promote the obligation of tolerance because to tolerate something would indicate an objectionable action. Nothing should be objectionable to the relativists.
Let’s do a little mental aikido with the belief that “no single point of view is completely true”. If “no single point of view is completely true” is true, then can this point of view cannot be completely true? And if this point of view cannot be completely true, then it is true that, “a single point of view could be completely true”. Finally, if a point of view could be completely true, then the original view that “no single point of view is completely true” must be false. This is another argument that is self-defeating!
We admit that people may be different in their ability to think, may have individual physical capabilities, et cetera. But even though we think of truth as relative to the person (the subject) that particular truth is absolute. The wine connoisseur’s ability to taste certain elements in a vintage will be more refined than someone who has damaged taste buds (subjective truth), but the fact is, the wine does have certain elements in the wine which may be detected by a human (objective truth).
Can something be true for you but not for me?
We can know that truth is absolute not relative because contrary arguments are self-defeating.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." – John 14:6
No comments:
Post a Comment