what is truth?
In sharing the Gospel, a problem that we often run into is a misunderstanding about truth. I often hear claims like, “well it is good for you to follow Christianity, but I’m going to follow my own beliefs.” I also run into individuals who seem to think that we can’t know any kind of truth at all. Often these relativistic ideas arise because people are uncomfortable claiming that someone else is wrong but don’t want to change their lives. The Christian response to these views is also lacking. We either get involved in a debate about philosophical minutia, or we drop the issue altogether. The Bible reveals that truth is a person by the name of Jesus Christ.
Types of Relativism
There are several different kinds of philosophical systems that take a subjective view of truth. The first and most widely rejected is simple relativism. This is where there really is no truth, and whatever someone thinks is truth for them. This is clearly ridiculous; just because I believe that I am a purple elephant with wings does not make it so. It is impossible to move forward in a discussion from this starting point. Instead of trying to finally arrive at the truth in a debate, people spout off their own ‘truth’. Even though I have never run into someone who really holds this extreme position, other forms of relativism are simply variations on this idea.
Probably the most widespread kind of relativism is moral relativism. This idea claims that there can be objective truth about things like existence, but any truth about claims of value, whether something is good or bad, is purely subjective. There are many varieties of this belief, but they all leave us without any way of saying, “murder is actually wrong regardless of what people think.” There is no yardstick by which our actions can be held accountable. This leads me to my next point.
Motivations of Relativism
In our society, it is becoming increasingly offensive to tell someone that they are wrong. Even if they believe they are a purple elephant with wings, it would be rude and arrogant for you to claim that you know something that they don’t. It is incredibly audacious to tell someone that they shouldn’t murder another person. “We haven’t gone that far; don’t be ridiculous” you might say; abortion?
The problem is that if I am allowed to say that someone else is wrong, then there is a good chance that I could be wrong. However, I like the way that I’m living even though I feel guilty sometimes, and I don’t want people to be able to tell me I need to change. The debate about relativism is not a debate about philosophy; it is a debate about practically changing our lives. For the murderer, a discussion about murder is not abstract. For the thief, a discussion about stealing is painful. For those who have rejected the only God, a claim about truth is confrontational.
The Truth
The reason that Christians can’t keep up in this discussion is because many of us have lost touch with the Truth ourselves. A central claim to Christianity is that we do not base our philosophy on a set of axioms but on the person Jesus Christ. His claim, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” is revolutionary. The discussion of Logos in John 1 hails back to Plato’s understanding of reason. I once had a friend who wore a shirt that said, “you don’t know Jack if you don’t know Jesus.” It was funny because his name was Jack, but it is also a humorous way of saying that our access to the truth is through Jesus Christ. We must come to know him and submit our knowledge to him, or we don’t really know anything.
Kristen wrote:
Thank you Dan! I’ve been thinking and praying a lot about this point of view that is so commonly encountered when sharing with people. The mind set of “your own way is the way to the truth” is such a common deception!
Posted on 13-Jul-07 at 9:33 pm | Permalink
Kel wrote:
Dan,
These are great thoughts. I am genuinely curious, though, as to whether or not a Christian need engage the truth debate early on when developing a relationship with a non-Christian of postmodern bent. My own feeling is that once people come to know Jesus personally (usually through communal practices with other Christians; especially the reading of Scripture), they come to know the Truth, and all philosophical discussions about truth and pluralism fade away. Just a thought, but I appreciate your thoughtful post.
Kel
Posted on 15-Jul-07 at 7:12 am | Permalink
Dan Sheffler wrote:
I agree. The only real reason to engage in a discussion about truth is to help them come into a relationship with Jesus. When engaging in conversations with people who are taking a relativistic stance we need to be aware of the reasons in their heart for what they are saying not just the intellectual reasons that they give.
I also wanted to mention that it is very important that we stake everything on our claim to truth. Paul says that if Jesus Christ didn’t rise from the dead then Christians are to be the most pitied out of anyone. If I am wrong about Jesus then I am a fool.
Posted on 16-Jul-07 at 5:46 am | Permalink
Jason wrote:
Excellent summation concerning the heart of the debate. Relativism definitely seems to be the spirit of the age. The most irritating “proof” against relativism is reality itself. Conceptualize, and theorize, and posit all you may, but the reality of guilt from a very real thing called sin IS experienced by all men (and women) everywhere.
Posted on 16-Jul-07 at 7:48 am | Permalink
Jonh Doe wrote:
Subjective truth should not be overlooked. Yes, many people’s truths are wrong when asking others to believe in them. But what I have found in experience is that the subject truth is not there as a foundation of beliefs; rather as menas of coping, a method of surviving, and an answer when fellowship is unavailable.
There is Truth and there is Tommorow. I believe in many cases molding a subject truth towards the greater good will prove more relevant and applicaple than always repenting and starting anew.
Posted on 21-Jul-07 at 9:56 am | Permalink
James Thompson wrote:
H.e.l.l.o. Dan,
I’d like to offer a few points in response to your article, and, in particular, your review of moral relativism. To call the Judeo-Christian code of ethics Christianity’s white elephant does not duly articulate its uselessness. Its veneration throughout the Western World, both remarkable and tragic, persists unchecked and without reason. The code employs zero constituents, not for its impossible standards or the flaws of humankind, but for its irrelevance to routine moral dilemma. Let me explain.
Judeo-Christian ethics lives in a box wherein dilemma unfold simply and out of context. You’re in a box, knife in your hand, facing a nameless other. Do you kill or not kill? You don’t kill– wonderful. You’re in a box, a nameless other asks your name. Do you lie or not lie? You don’t lie– two for two; this is great. Now consider a more demanding example.
You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other. He insists, “Pick a number, one or two.” You pick two. “I’ll slit my throat if you chose two. What did you choose?” You no doubt lie, answering “one” to save his life. Let me make myself clear: you conclude that the relative appropriateness of lying hinges on the details governing the situation. Once again, consider a more demanding example.
You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other and in yours. He insists, “Kill that child at your side or I’ll kill the child at mine.” You say “no” and his child suffers the slow anguish of maniacal exuberance. And once more. You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other and in yours. He insists, “Kill that child at your side or I’ll dice the 1 million children at mine, and the one at yours.”
It was horrid, but you killed a child that day and saved a million more. In case you’re scheming, let me establish an additional constraint. As the dead child lay at your side, the nameless man says, “You repent your sin, in your prayers or in your heart, and I will shred these kids apart.” You comply; you live; and later you die. Are you burning for all eternity in the depths of Hell? No. Just as before, you recognize that the relative appropriateness of murder hinges on the details governing the situation. Likewise, you expect that God, with His infinite mercy and benevolence, shares your sentiment.
Granted, the box scenario’s a sham, but it highlights an important and inescapable limitation of Judeo-Christian ethics: such ethics only apply to simple, one-dimensional scenarios, free of controversy and free of moral doubt. When faced with a defining moment– that is, a scenario whose varied solutions each require a wrong and each prevent a right– Judeo-Christian ethics provide no guidance. The reason you assume your salvation following the last example is because you assume God acts pragmatically, that for the case presented He empathizes with your decision to murder or at least recognizes your intention to glorify Him. This, of course, is the definition and application of moral relativism.
Next, reconsider the final moral dilemma. All else constant, this time the nameless man threatens fewer than 1 million children. Perhaps he garners 5000 children, or 42 children, or 3 children, or whatever number of children between 1 and 1 million for sacrifice. How many children must the nameless man assemble to justify your murdering just the one? I expect there exists a range of numbers of children in which you become ethically torn. And your range might differ drastically from others’. This, of course, is the definition and application of moral ambiguity. Even if you redirect your moral quandary to God, you must recognize that in order to provide guidance, God must act pragmatically (that is, in a morally relativistic manner).
While the previous examples were concocted for the sake of argument, I argue that practically all dilemma we humans encounter conform to this form– falling within the gray areas where simple right/wrong Judeo-Christian ethics do not suffice. Moral relativism or ambiguity arises not from evil, corruptness, or a discomfort in “claiming that someone else is wrong,” but, rather, from the complexity and diversity of our societal interactions. Examine the decisions of your life ranging from the most challenging to the most mundane. You’ll find that some degree of pragmatism (that is, moral relativism) was evoked; it is necessary for survival.
Posted on 11-Sep-08 at 5:36 pm | Permalink
Dan wrote:
I’m impressed that you took the time to right such a long and articulate comment on a blog that no one reads. Unfortunately, I believe you are arguing against a position that I do not hold. I believe the great command that governs all of ethics is “love one another.” This is of course context dependent, but not therefore relative.
Posted on 12-Sep-08 at 2:05 pm | Permalink
James Thompson wrote:
You recast Judeo-Christian ethics as the call to “love one another” rather than the blind adherence to contradictory and one-dimensional commandments. Good to hear. With that, now you’ll please pardon my ephemeral and now rapidly waning contentment.
A duck is a duck but a duck is not a mallard? Reflect on our varied codes of ethics– both those founded in the gut (e.g. sleep test ethics) or those rigorously defined (e.g. utilitarianism). Their common pursuit is the resolution of moral dilemma at the possible expense of forgoing principles that society generally regards as “good” (e.g. to not kill). You advocate mutual love and purport that your steadfast adherence to that code, by definition, renders it morally irrelative. What? That’s not what you said? I apologize. Let me try again. God, with all his omniscience, warrants universal moral truth (i.e. moral irrelativeness) and you believe that mutual love best approximates that truth. Notice that I describe two common interpretations of moral relativism. In classic fashion, Christians often confuse the two.
Reread your original post. In particular, you write: “[sarcastically to emphasize your displeasure with the notion] it is incredibly audacious to tell someone that they shouldn’t murder another person.” You claim that “loving one another” permits contextual consideration. How then do you justify the sarcasm screaming from this statement? In other words, if you define moral relativism as that which opposes the “great command that governs all of ethics,” then why emphasize the absurdity of moral relativism with the oftentimes contextually permissible act of murder?
One more question: Where is the heart of the common Christian wearing the t-shirt bedizened with the common quip “reject moral relativism?” There are two ways to answer this question. The first is to say, “It’s their style of expressing their unwavering devotion to glorifying God and spreading His message of love and yadi yadi yadi.” The second requires a bit more meat and pertains to and expands on the conversation at hand. Can you guess which I prefer?
Posted on 15-Sep-08 at 2:50 am | Permalink