Reasoning with a Relativist
Reasoning with a Relativist
I had studied relativism before, but it wasn't until the past few years that I've met people who actually "think" this way. I was flabbergasted! I shouldn't have been surprised, though. Relativism is a necessary consequence of the evolutionary theory. If everything else accidentally evolved from nothingness, and continues to evolve with no certain goal, then why not morality and ethics?
Fortunately, it doesn't require much effort to dismantle basic relativist arguments. (Even if relativists refuse to acknowledge that you have done so!) Relativism is a self-defeating philosophy. It claims that there is no such thing as truth, while maintaining that it itself is true! "It is absolutely true that nothing is absolutely true." I am using the word "true" in the traditional sense, of course. ;)
Relativists are forced to function with a huge disconnect between their thinking and living. (I call this philosophic infidelity because they are essentially forced to keep two different philosophies: one they 'believe' and one they can actually use.) The vast majority of so-called relativists fail to take relativism to its logical conclusions. If they did, they might be forced to recognize how ludicrous it is! Nothing could make sense in this world-view; everything would be confusion, unpredictability, and meaninglessness. My family's opinion is that, for most people, relativism is just a convenient, politically-correct excuse for a refusal to engage in real discussion. The moment you challenge them with Truth, they throw up their hands. "That might be true for you, but it's not true for me." Few people realize what relativism actually entails.
Here are two relativist arguments I have personally heard.
Two people walk into the same room. One, still wet from a shower, says that the room is cold. The other contends that the room is warm. This is supposed to be an example, however crude, of how relativism works in 'real life.' The obvious response is that this is a case of perception not truth. The actual temperature (in Fahrenheit, for instance) of the room is the same for both people. Now, you can argue with the relativist about how thermometers are just someone's arbitrary opinion!
'2 + 2 always equals 4' is not always an unassailable statement, as we have learned to our chagrin. The quick retort of one relativist: "That's not true!" [Wait! That sounded like an accusation! After all, if there is no truth can there be untruth?] What followed was a detailed explanation that 'perfect' numbers are nearly nonexistent, that most of the numbers we use are necessarily rounded (2 instead of 2.123456789 ad infinitum), and that therefore numbers are only approximate and therefore not “true.” Needless to say, we were shocked by this shallow response. The subject had been changed from absolute truth to precision. A perfect 2 plus a perfect 2 always equals a perfect 4, after all. (Try to avoid the subsequent argument that "another person's 2 might be your 3." This reduces you to holding up your fingers. "This many added to this many, always makes this many.")
These are two simple examples, but most others create the same fundamental mistake between absolute truth and—opinion, perception, precision, or different names for the same things.
It is very challenging to speak the truth with love to people who don't even know what truth is. There are few things more completely maddening! I have learned (am learning) that there comes a time when you simply have to let go of an argument. You can't have a logical discussion with someone who refuses to make sense because his world-view doesn't have room for sense. You can only pray that God will one day illumine their minds... and their souls.
Painting: The painting illustrating this page is Composition VII by Wassily Kandinsky, a theosophist. (Theosophists believe that each religion is a stage in a spiritual evolution; thus, all religions have aspects of truth but are not the whole truth.) This Russian artist is credited with being the first truly abstract artist. He believed that “There is no must in art because art is free.” He did not believe that he must conform his art or his self to the dictates of anything but his own feelings and perception “Doubt must be resolved alone within the soul,” he said. “Otherwise one would profane one’s own powerful solution.”
Tuesday, January 12, 2010