Search this Web Book
“Love will find a way. Indifference will find an excuse.”
UNKNOWN
Kirk Cameron’s Comment
This lesson explains why the concept of relativism has taken root in our society, and provides several ways you can easily counter its claims. Truth really is logical, so don’t be intimidated by the arguments presented in this lesson; they’re simple and effective in helping people see the illogic of their beliefs. You can then appeal to their conscience using the Ten Commandments.
Questions & Objections
““I am too big a sinner.””
Nobody is too big a sinner. The love of God and the sacrifice of Jesus are capable of cleansing the worst of all sin. Even Hitler could have been saved if he would have turned to Christ. Your sins are not too big for God to wipe away. Sin has no power over God, only over you.
Do you think murder and adultery are serious sins? David, who God called “a man after His own heart” (Acts 13:22), was a murderer and an adulterer. He even tried to hide his sin from everyone. But God knew his sins and exposed them. David repented and threw himself on the mercy of the Lord, and God forgave him. God will forgive you too if you put your trust in Jesus Christ and ask Him to forgive you of your sins (Romans 10:9, 10).
Lesson
By Matthew J. Slick
Cognitive relativism, which affirms that all truth is relative, would mean that there is no objective standard of truth to be found or claimed. It would, naturally, deny that there is a God of absolute truth. It would also deny the belief that rational thought can discover and verify truth.
Many believe that this relativism is self-contradictory. But, why has relativism gained a foothold in modern society? I think there are several factors contributing to its acceptance.
First, the success of science has increasingly promoted the idea that true answers are found within science. Many people believe whatever scientists tell them is factual. When science cannot answer something, it simply states that the truth will become known later. With this, people have faith in science and the only absolute is that what we know now may not be true later. Thereby, it can undermine absolute truth.
Second, with the broad acceptance of the evolutionary theory, God is pushed more and more out of the picture. Without God as a determiner of what is true and not true, we are left to do and believe “what is right in our own eyes.”
Third, we are encountering more and more diverse cultures in the world. This tends to make us more comfortable with the idea that there is more than one way to do something, more than one way for a culture to operate, more than one way for something to be true or right. This isn’t necessarily wrong, but it does contribute to a denial of absolutes.
Fourth, increasingly, the content of film, academia, and literature is moving away from the notion of the absolute and toward relativism. These media help shape our culture.
Fifth, there has been an increase in relativistic philosophies, particularly those found in the New Age movement, which teaches that there is no absolute truth and that each person can create his own reality. Though this movement is part of the relativistic “problem,” it is well permeated into society.
Sixth, past philosophers such as Wittgenstein, Khuh, Kant, Marx, and Nietzsche have influenced the thinking of many with their relativistic principles and attacks on absolute truths.
The problem I see with cognitive relativism is that it denies the possibility of absolute truth. Furthermore, I believe cognitive relativism is easily refutable with the following example of a logical absolute: Something cannot bring itself into existence.
My proposed logical absolute is indeed logical and always true. For something to bring itself into existence, it must first exist. If it first existed, then it cannot bring itself into existence because it already is existing. Likewise, if something does not exist, then it is not possible for it to bring itself into existence since it isn’t there to do anything.
This is an absolute truth and it is knowable. Since it is absolutely true, cognitive relativism, which states that all truth is relative, is false. What if relativism were true?
Relativism is the position that all points of view are as valid as any other points of view and that the individual is the measure of what is true for that person. I see a big problem with this. Following is an illustration to demonstrate it.
The setting: A thief is casing a jewelry store so he can rob it. He has entered it to check out any visible alarm settings, locks, layout, etc. In the process, he has unexpectedly gotten involved in a discussion with the owner of the jewelry store whose hobby is the study of philosophy and believes that truth and morals are relative.
“So,” says the owner, “everything is relative. That is why I believe that all morals are not absolute and that right and wrong is up to the individual to determine within the confines of society. But there is no absolute right and wrong.”
“That is a very interesting perspective,” says the thief. “I was brought up believing that there was a God and that there was right and wrong. But I abandoned all of that and I agree with you that there is no absolute right and wrong and that we are free to do what we want.”
The thief leaves the store and returns that evening and breaks in. He has disabled all the alarms and is in the process of robbing the store. That is when the owner of the store enters through a side door. The thief pulls out a gun. The owner cannot see the man’s face because he is wearing a ski mask.
“Don’t shoot me,” says the owner. “Please take whatever you want and leave me alone.”
“That is exactly what I plan to do,” says the thief.
“Wait a minute. I know you. You are the man who was in the store earlier today. I recognize your voice.”
“That is very unfortunate for you,” says the thief. “Because now you also know what I look like. And since I do not want to go to jail, I am forced to kill you.”
“You can’t do that,” says the owner.
“Why not?”
“Because it isn’t right,” pleads the desperate man.
“But did you not tell me today that there is no right and wrong?”
“But I have a family, and children who need me, and a wife.”
“So? I am sure that you are insured and that they will get a lot of money. But since there is no right and wrong, it makes no difference whether or not I kill you. And if I let you live, you will turn me in and I will go to prison. Sorry, but that will not do.”
“But it is a crime against society to kill me. It is wrong because society says so.”
“As you can see, I don’t recognize society’s claim to impose morals on me. It’s all relative, remember?”
“Please do not shoot me, I beg you. I promise not to tell anyone what you look like. I swear it!”
“I do not believe you and I cannot take that chance.”
“But it is true! I swear I’ll tell no one.”
“Sorry, but it cannot be true because there is no absolute truth, no right and wrong, remember? If I let you live and then I left, you will break your so-called promise. There is no way I could trust you. Our conversation this morning convinced me that you believe everything is relative. Because of that, I cannot believe you will keep your word.”
“But it is wrong to kill me. It isn’t right!”
“It is neither right nor wrong for me to kill you. Since truth is relative to the individual, if I kill you, that is my truth. And, it is obviously true that if I let you live I will go to prison. Sorry, but you have killed yourself.”
“No. Please do not shoot me. I beg you.”
“Begging makes no difference.”
Bang.
If relativism is true, then was it wrong to pull the trigger? Perhaps someone might say that it is wrong to take another life needlessly. But why is that wrong, if there is no standard of right or wrong? Others have said that it is a crime against society. But, so what? If what is true for you is simply true, then what is wrong with killing someone to protect yourself after you have robbed him? If it is true for you that to protect yourself you must kill, then who cares what society says? Why is anyone obligated to conform to social norms? Doing so is a personal decision.
Though not all relativists will behave in an unethical manner, I see relativism as a contributor to overall anarchy. Why? Because it is a justification to do whatever you want.
Refuting Relativism
The proposition of relativism, that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual, is not logical. In fact, it is self-refuting.
All truth is relative. If all truth is relative, then the statement “All truth is relative” would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that “All truth is relative” is false.
There are no absolute truths. The statement “There are no absolute truths” is an absolute statement, which is supposed to be true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth and “There are no absolute truths” is false. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you—including relativism.
What is true for you is not true for me. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. If you say yes, then relativism is false. If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then I am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false. If that is true, then how can relativism be true?
No one can know anything for sure. If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure, which is self-defeating.
That is your reality, not mine. Is my reality really real? If my reality is different from yours, how can my reality contradict your reality? If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time?
What Is Truth?
“What is truth?” is a very simple question. We can offer definitions like “Truth is that which conforms to reality, fact, or actuality.” If there is such a thing as truth, then we should be able to find it. If truth cannot be known, then it probably doesn’t exist. But, it does exist. For example, we know it is true that you are reading this. Is there such a thing as something that is always true all the time? Yes, there is. For example, “Something cannot bring itself into existence” is an absolute truth.
If we are to ever hope to determine if there is such a thing as truth apart from cultural and personal preferences, we must acknowledge that we are then aiming to discover something greater than ourselves, something that transcends culture and individual inclinations. To do this is to look beyond ourselves and outside of ourselves. In essence, it means that we are looking for God. God would be truth, the absolute and true essence of being and reality who is the author of all truth. If you are interested in truth beyond yourself, then you must look to God.
For the Christian, the ultimate expression of truth is found in the Bible, in Jesus who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Of course, most philosophers and skeptics will dismiss His claim, but for the Christian, He is the mainstay of hope, security, and guidance. Jesus, who walked on water, claimed to be divine, and rose from the dead, said that He was the truth and the originator of truth. If Jesus is wrong, then we should ignore Him. But, if He is right, then it is true that we should listen to Him.
The eyewitnesses recorded what they saw. They were with Him. They watched Him perform many miracles, heal the sick, calm a storm with a command, and even rise from the dead. You either believe or dismiss these claims. If you dismiss them, that is your prerogative. But, if you accept them, then you are faced with decisions to make about Jesus. What will you believe about Him? What will you decide about Him? Is He true? Is what He said true?
Truth conforms to reality. The reality is that Jesus performed many miracles and rose from the dead.
Adapted from an article by the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (www.carm.org).
Preacher’s Progress
A sample witnessing conversation, written in the style of John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress.
Christian: I don’t believe that all points of view are equally valid.
Rel A. Tivist: Why not?
Christian: Because it doesn’t make sense that everything is relative. That wouldn’t be logical.
Rel A. Tivist: Ah, you see? That is your problem. You are using logic to refute relativism and you cannot do that. Relativism isn’t based upon logic. It isn’t the same thing. So you can’t use logic to refute relativism.
Christian: If you say I cannot use logic to refute relativism, then you are using logic to say this since you give me the logical statement and conclusion that I cannot use logic to refute relativism because relativism isn’t based on logic. I hope you can see that you made a logical case here for not using logic. If that is so, then your complaint is self-contradictory and invalid. Would you want me to follow a system of thought that is self-contradictory?
Rel A. Tivist: I can see why they call you slick. But, the point is that relativism is true within itself and logic is not a necessary property of relativism. It can be used within relativism, but it is not superior to relativism.
Christian: To say that relativism is true within itself is an absolute statement. Don’t you see that you can’t do that if relativism is true? You would have to say something like, ‘Relativism is true some of the time.’
Rel A. Tivist: You are playing word games here.
Christian: I do not see how. I am simply responding to what you said. I think what you are doing is simply making assertions without proof. You are saying that it is true because it is true. In essence, you are telling me an absolute truth that relativism is its own self-existing truth. This is an absolute statement which again refutes the notion that relativism is true. Furthermore, if relativism is true then relativism itself is relative. In other words, if relativism is true, then relativism may or may not be true in and of itself. If that is true, then relativism can be false. If relativism can be false, then relativism can’t be true.
Rel A. Tivist: There you go using logic again. Logic is not the whole means by which truth is determined. Relativism goes beyond logic to truths that logic cannot prove.
Christian: Okay, then without using logic, can you tell me why relativism is true?
Rel A. Tivist: It is true because it is true that people believe different things and that people have different perceptions of reality and what is right for them.
Christian: I agree that people believe different things, but does believing different things make them true because they are believed?
Rel A. Tivist: No, of course not. But you must understand that we perceive things differently, and that these different perceptions are true for different people.
Christian: I can agree with that, but I am not speaking about things that really are relative, like which side of the bed you should get out of in the morning. I’m talking about things like lying, cheating, stealing, etc. If relativism is true and all points of view are equally valid, then someone’s view that it is okay to steal is valid.
Rel A. Tivist: Technically, it would be, depending on the circumstances. For example, if it meant feeding your family or helping someone.
Christian: I see. Okay, give me your money right now. I want to steal it from you. If I had a gun, I’d point it at you and rob you. Is that okay?
Rel A. Tivist: Of course not.
Christian: Why not? My view is that in order to win the argument, I must rob from you to demonstrate the absurdity of your position. Therefore, it is right for me. You should approve.
Rel A. Tivist: But I cannot, because it isn’t right for me that you steal from me.
Christian: Oh, so relativism has boundaries? It is true only for the individual, no one else?
Rel A. Tivist: In that case, yes.
Christian: Then relativism isn’t a universal truth, is it? If it is only true for individuals on an individual basis, it may or may not be true or false or right or wrong or whatever. It is just a kind of ‘whatever you want to do’ philosophy.
Rel A. Tivist: Sort of, but you can’t harm anyone else.
Christian: Are you saying that it is an absolute that you are not to harm anyone else?
Rel A. Tivist: There you go again turning this into an argument on absolutes.
Christian: But I am only following your lead. You’re the one who said that relativism is true because it is true. Correct?
Rel A. Tivist: Yes, I said that, but you have to understand that it is relative to the individual.
Christian: If relativism is true because it is true, then can I say that it is false because it is false?
Rel A. Tivist: You could if you wanted to.
Christian: Then would it be false or not?
Rel A. Tivist: It would be false for you.
Christian: But that isn’t what I said. I said it was false ‘because it is false.’ I didn’t say it was false for me. I said that it is by nature false. Don’t you see? You said it was true ‘because it is true.’ You spoke of it as being true ‘by nature.’ You implied an absolute quality to relativism as a real truth. If I can do the same thing in the opposite direction, then how does my assertion become different in nature than yours? In other words, ‘by nature’ it is true and ‘by nature’ it is false. Both cannot be true. Therefore relativism doesn’t work.
Rel A. Tivist: What you are doing is using logic again. Relativism and logic are different things. You cannot use one thing to judge another.
Christian: But you just did. You made a statement and drew a conclusion. You said that relativism and logic are different. Then you said that I cannot use one to judge the other. In other words, you made a statement and drew a logical conclusion. Look, if you want to validate relativism using relativism, then why do you keep using logic to do it?
Rel A. Tivist: You keep going back to these logic games. You have to understand that they are simply different.
Christian: So then, what you are saying is that I am not allowed to examine relativism in a logical manner. Correct?
Rel A. Tivist: Correct.
Christian: You want truth, right?
Rel A. Tivist: Of course.
Christian: But, if I must accept that relativism is simply true, how can I possibly know if it is ever false? What you are saying is that it is never false. If it is never false, then it is always true. If it is always true, then it isn’t relative, is it?
Rel A. Tivist: There you go using logic again.
Christian: I’m trying to ask questions. But, it seems that you want me to avoid thinking and just accept relativism as true. If I were to say that relativism is true, then it is absolutely true that relativism is true, which would mean that the opposing view that relativism is false could not be true ... which would mean that relativism is not true since it states that all views are true. It seems to me that the only way relativism is true is if you stop thinking logically and just accept it on blind faith that it is true.
Rel A. Tivist: This is the problem with the Western, Aristotelian logic system. It teaches you that there are absolutes when there are not.
Christian: But to say there are not absolutes is an absolute statement, which is self-refuting. Again, it seems that the only way to accept relativism is to not think logically. You have to believe it on faith.
Rel A. Tivist: The nature of relativism is that it is not subject to logic. No logical reasons are necessary to establish this. Relativism, by its nature, is not of logic, but beyond logic. The essence of relativism is that relativism itself is true.
Christian: Then you are simply stating that relativism is true without proving it. In other words, you can’t prove it. You just say it is true and that’s it.
Rel A. Tivist: We are getting nowhere.
Christian: I disagree. I think we are making great progress.
Rel A. Tivist: See? It is how you perceive it, isn’t it?
Christian: Then, is it valid that we have made progress? After all, relativism says that all points of view are equally valid.
Rel A. Tivist: It’s valid for you, not for me.
Christian: I have a different type of question for you. Have you ever told a lie?
Rel A. Tivist: Yes.
Christian: What does that make you? (Etc.)
Questions
- How has science played a role in promoting relativism?
- How has the evolutionary theory contributed to relativism?
- How has multiculturalism encouraged relativism?
- What is an easy way to refute cognitive relativism?
- What is the only source of transcendent truth?
Answers to these review questions are provided in the back of the printed book / source PDF.
Memory Verse
“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither knows him: but you know him; for he dwells with you, and shall be in you.”
John 14:16-17
Last Words
Princess Amelia, daughter of George III: “I could not wish for a better trust than in the merits of the Redeemer.”
Princess Amelia
This page is a faithful digital transcription of Lesson 75 of The School of Biblical Evangelism by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort (Bridge-Logos, © 2004), republished by UECF.NET under the book’s own printed permission to reproduce it “for the furtherance of the gospel and given away free.” See the About this Web Edition page for full source and copyright details, and the original PDF for the complete book, including the answer key.