lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Ch. 11 Hindson - notes
Introduction to Christian Thought (D) (Liberty
University)
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
11. Relativism: Whatever You
Think search
more_vert
Everyday Biblical Worldview
11Relativism: Whatever You Think
There is a famous myth about six blind men and an elephant. It goes like this. Six blind men there are
given the task to touch an object in the center of a room and declare what they think the object must be.
What the blind men do not know is that the object is an elephant. The first blind man goes into the room
and touches the elephant. He comes up against the elephant’s side, which is flat and sturdy. He decides
that the object must be a wall.
The second blind man goes into the room and unknowingly walks to the front of the elephant. He
reaches out to feel for the object and touches the tusk. He feels the sharp edge of the tusk and decides
the unknown object must be a spear.
The third blind man walks into the room. He reaches forward and, instead of touching the tusks as the
previous blind man had, he touches the trunk of the elephant. He rubs his hand on the trunk and shrinks
back, declaring that the unknown object is a snake.
The fourth blind man goes into the room and walks into the rear side of the elephant. He reaches out
and touches the elephant’s leg. The enormous diameter, rough feel, and immovability leads this man to
determine that he is touching a tree trunk.
The fifth blind man walks into the room and comes up to the elephant’s head. He reaches up and
touches the elephant’s ear. He feels air moving around the ear as the elephant flaps it. Thus, he
declares the object is some sort of fan.
Finally, the sixth blind man goes into the room and walks to the rear of the elephant. He reaches out and
grabs the tail. The skinny, rough tail leads him to declare that the object is a rope.
Each blind man touched the same object, an elephant. Yet the six objects declared to be in the room
were a wall, a spear, a snake, a tree, a fan, and a rope. None of these are correct, but all were
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
reasonable. If the blind men had gotten together to discuss what they found, there would have been
heated disagreement as the one who grabbed the leg, thinking it to be a tree trunk, would wonder how
the sixth man, who grabbed the tail, could possibly suggest that the object was a skinny rope. The man
who touched the tusk would argue that the third blind man was foolish in declaring the object to be a
snake. The truth is, each blind man touched the same object. Based on their experience, they were
correct in their assumptions. Were the blind men to come together without debate and simply describe
what they felt, perhaps they would arrive at the conclusion that the object was an elephant. Perhaps
they would not figure out what the object was—but they could at least get closer to the truth.
Such are the assertions of relativism.
If the elephant is truth, then the blind men are various cultures and people in the world. Relativism
suggests that the truth can be partly known, but not fully. Based on experience and cultural
understanding, a person can know part of the truth, but not the full truth. Truth is an absolute, but it is
impossible to fully understand because of the sociocultural influences that prevent individuals from
being able to experience the rest of the elephant.
This idea is the main assertion of the relativist. Truth is abstract and incomprehensible to the individual.
Individuals may, however, based on their experience, be able to grasp some of the truth. What is true
for one person may look different than what is true for another person, but ultimately, they are both
small aspects of a greater truth.
The Birth of Relativism
To understand relativism, it is necessary to survey four various philosophies. Relativism in itself is a
belief, but it is usually regarded as an aspect of a greater philosophy. Though influenced by the
following philosophies in various ways, the basic tenet of relativism is that absolute truth is not
knowable. For all practical purposes, truth is based on each person’s own perspective, which is
influenced by culture, upbringing, and other external environments.
Relativism begins, however, with naturalism. Naturalism, the belief that nature (including the cosmos) is
all that exists and that nothing supernatural exists, made room for relativism. Before naturalism, deities
and religious texts were often looked to for truth. For Christians, the Bible, understood as God’s Word,
provides truth. Yet with naturalism eliminating the divine, naturalists had to look to the natural world
for truth. The problem is that nature does not provide truth; truth merely exists. Perhaps the natural
world can reveal clues or aspects of the truth as Paul argued in Romans 1:18–24, but it does not provide
absolute truth.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Following naturalism came the philosophy of nihilism, which will be discussed in greater detail in chapter
22. Yet, for the sake of explaining relativism, nihilism deserves a brief treatment. Nihilism is the belief
that nothing exists. Nihilism essentially denies truth, knowledge, and values. Nihilism suggests that if
naturalism is true, then there is no God and no value, worth, knowledge, or truth from nature. This
worldview takes the bold step of declaring that life is meaningless and worthless. Humans are here only
to live and die like animals. Death is not the end of life and beginning of the afterlife; death is the literal
extinction and annihilation of self. Nothing has value. Truth does not exist. The values and truth the
world seeks after were not the same as nature, because nature had no values and possessed no truth.
In a very real way, nihilism posited at its core that no morality and no belief has any absolute basis.
Relativism builds on this thought and suggests a person can do whatever he or she wishes simply
because there is no truth or value at all.
After nihilism came existentialism. Though the roots of existentialism had appeared a century or more
earlier, the philosophy itself was truly spread and popularized after World War II. The war left the
European world completely exhausted, devastated, hopeless, and ruined. Glorious cities were now
burned to the ground. Philosophically, there was no answer. Nihilism posited only that there was no
meaning to the destruction and death, no purpose or reason for it—it just was. It was during this time
that a man named Jean-Paul Sartre began to build upon other philosophers like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche,
and Dostoyevsky to create what is now referred to as existentialism.
Existentialism is notoriously hard to define, as even philosophers disagree on the nuances. At the very
least, it seems most philosophers agree that existentialism teaches that existence precedes essence. In
other words, the fact that you exist as an individual person is the most absolute characteristic about
you. After that, who you are is defined by what you do. If you do good things, you are a good person. If
you do cruel things, you are a cruel person. You are whatever you are in the moment.
Yet, unwilling to cause the depression that nihilism might breed, existentialists suggest that since there
is no absolute meaning to life, a person must create meaning. This is where relativism comes back into
the picture. Since there is no objective meaning beyond the existence of a person, a person must create
meaning and, thus, create her own truth. The individual must create all of these things that simply do
not exist, because the natural world in the end cannot provide them. Yet we know that humans must
believe in something. Without belief, humans are simply a depressed species with an impending moral
demise. Thus, existentialism asks adherents to create their own purpose, truth, and values. Relativism
becomes the logical outworking of existential philosophy.
If a person is really only defined what she is in the moment, then she chooses what is right for her and
what is true to her. What has been absolute and standard for millennia now becomes a choice for the
individual. There is no conforming to truth; rather, truth conforms to the will of the mind and the
desires of the heart. Existentialism gave relativism the foundation it needed to flourish. Since the 1940s,
when
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
existentialism seeped into the homes of people throughout Europe and America, culture has become
increasingly relativistic.
Finally, existentialism gave way to postmodernism. Postmodernism declared the inevitable result that
the prior four philosophies led to: truth is relative. Now, not only is truth relative for each person, but
truth is relative in general. There is no real or absolute truth. Postmodernism does not believe that
absolutes can be known for certain and places truth, values, and knowledge squarely in the realm of the
subjective. The rationale and factual methods of the Enlightenment have been surrendered to the
sweeping attractiveness of postmodernism. If truth is subjective, so are morals. What is moral for one
person can be immoral for another without contradiction. One person may tell a lie and still be moral.
while another person cannot. There is no standard or foundation upon which truth may be built.
Relativism not only flourishes in postmodern thought; it is king.
Dogmatic Relativism
The term “dogmatic relativism” seems a contradiction. How is it possible to be dogmatic about
relativism, when relativism teaches that there is no such thing as dogma? In postmodernism, however,
relativism is dogma. Relativism is such a widespread doctrine now that many falling under its influence
are offended at anyone who suggests there is an absolute truth. In hypocrisy at its finest, relativism has
assumed a philosophical dictatorship that suggests that anything that dismisses relativism is false.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger states this in response to relativism’s dogmatic reign:
How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how
many ways of thinking. The small boat of the thought of many Christians has often been tossed about
by these waves—flung from one extreme to another: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism;
from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from
agnosticism to syncretism and so forth. Every day new sects spring up, and what St Paul says about
human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error (cf. Eph 4:14) comes true.
Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism.
Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of
doctrine,” seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of
relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of
one’s own ego and desires.[34]
By dogmatically stating that all truth is subjective, relativists are acknowledging by their own definition
that there is at least one absolute truth.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
Moral Relativism
The inevitable result of the denial of values, truth, and knowledge is known as moral relativism.
Consider the Ten Commandments. It is wrong to murder because God said it is wrong to murder. He is
the epitome and standard of justice, morality, and holiness. The same is true for stealing, adultery, and
other wrongdoing. What God says is true. If he declares actions to be right or wrong, then they must be
right or wrong. Yet, according to relativism, there is no clearly known truth, and thus no standard for
judging morality. Many examples can be found within the sexual revolution and its impact on American
culture. Alternative sexual practices once considered taboo, such as cohabitation or adultery, are now
commonplace and often openly practiced. These and other practices at odds with a biblical worldview
have become acceptable in the current postmodern, relativistic culture.
Even so, relativism has to explain away hypocrisy and numerous inconsistencies. The foundation for
every civilization is found within its law. America lives by its constitution. Legislation across America has
within it laws that forbid or allow people to do certain things. For example, murder is a crime worthy of
punishment. Yet if relativism is to be taken seriously, murder may be moral for one person and immoral
for another. There must be laws for order within civilization. What truths are these laws based on?
There can be no such thing as a truly relativist culture that does not result in anarchy.
Relativism and Christianity
The winds of modern culture have spread the seeds of relativism. Unfortunately, it has often found its
way inside the church, with some self-identified Christian organizations allowing some sins to be
accepted or even celebrated. However, this is nothing new. Solomon was right in saying “there is
nothing new under the sun” (Eccl 1:9). Even the conclusion of the book of Judges describes Israel as
relativistic: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own
eyes” (Judges 21:25 KJV).
Do these words not describe our current culture perfectly? “Every man did that which was right in his
own eyes.” Let us hold every word of the Bible as true and be unwilling to compromise God’s truth. Let
us choose to obey God rather than humans. Let us stand upon Paul’s declaration in Romans 3:4, “Let
God be true, even though everyone is a liar.” Our biblical worldview calls us to be anchored to the truths
of God though the winds of every doctrine blow through the sails.
