#7: Part 2 of the Moral Argument: Ravi Zacharias’ perspective and the objection of philosophical relativism

(For much-more information about this blog, see the home page at https://reasonbasedfaith.com/.)

Note: I’ve added an anti-suicide and anti-discouragement page to my site. In this pandemic, since more people are absent from work or unemployed, and since many are feeling greater financial stress (and more stress in general), more people are discouraged; some are tempted to commit suicide.

This anti-suicide and anti-discouragement page contains selections that I copied from my home page, from my first and fourth posts, and from my “About Roger” page; I’ve also added some new information and insights. This information includes logical reasons that SHOULD discourage any objectively-minded, logically-thinking person from committing suicide—some very cogent reasons are among them. Of course, these reasons apply to discouragement as well and are why, for years now, I’ve almost always been positive and optimistic, and very-rarely discouraged.

If these reasons are at least POSSIBLY true, discouragement should decrease and suicide becomes an inadvisable option. Why? Because it’s then POSSIBLE that someone discouraged or contemplating suicide may still be able to enjoy life, following the specifics provided on this page, which may be accessed from the hidden menu or by clicking on the above links or here.

In addition, I’ve recently (since September 19th) revised and added a fair amount of material to the home page, particularly in the sections on “Reason versus faith? Not hardly!” and “Does science point to God’s non-existence?” and “Some scientists and scholars overtly support faith based on reasons and evidence” and “Evidence for the Bible.” (Some sections of content are above, and some are below, where the posts are listed. Those below—including “Evidence for the Bible”—are not only below the list of posts; they’re also below the “anti-suicide,” “hidden menu,” “About Roger,” and “Hyperlinks” paragraphs.) I think these revisions and additions have significantly improved the page and made it more cogent in its reasoning.

Additional note: I wrote this post before I ever became aware of the scandal over Ravi Zacharias. If I had been aware of this, I wouldn’t have chosen to quote from his book, Cries of the Heart—even though, strictly speaking, what he wrote was in accord with God’s truth. Still, since Ravi phrased these truths well, I’ve left the quotes in, rather than extensively revise that portion of this post.

I’ll start with one section on the pandemic, in which there’s more vital information about precautions. (I sometimes include information about the pandemic at the beginning of my posts. Why? I’m concerned about people’s reactions—or, in some cases, the lack thereof—to this pandemic. A lack of reaction—i.e. disregarding the precautions—makes it significantly more-probable that the particular individual not reacting may catch COVID.)

1. More information on COVID precautions

Here’s an easy way to remember the “4 W’s” of COVID precautions, including information on the topic of windows:

• Wear your mask when you’re not alone.
• Watch your distance (6 feet or about 2 meters, or more); some call this waiting for the next person to get 6 feet ahead of you.
• Wash your hands or use hand sanitizer, especially after touching something someone else has touched.
• Windows— keep them open (at least slightly) when you’re not the only person in the room, to promote as much air flow as reasonably possible, as long as doing this is bearable in cold weather; i.e. don’t catch a cold. Some may argue that having a cold is better than having COVID, but colds can progress to bronchitis and then to pneumonia, which (apart from taking an antibiotic) can be life-threatening, as well as COVID.

Why have the windows open? Viral particles from an infected individual can hang in the air. (Cf. https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them) Therefore, the more air that flows through the room, the more that viral particles, if present, will be dispersed. In other words, the more air that flows, the LESS probable it will be that you’ll catch COVID if you happen to be anywhere near someone who’s infected.

As everyone now knows, a person can be infected with COVID for up to 14 days without displaying any symptoms, and thus without realizing that he or she is infected. That’s a sad fact; yet at the same time, if we take the proper precautions (the “4 W’s”), we will greatly diminish the chance that we’ll catch COVID. If we perfectly followed these precautions, the chance of infection would likely be near zero.

In section 1 of Part 1, I explained why victory over COVID is possible; everyone doesn’t have to get it. I live in a facility with 224 staff and residents. On June 30th, ALL of us were tested for COVID. ALL 224 tests were negative; NO ONE had COVID. Why? I believe it’s because the policies here are very strict in this regard, about COVID precautions.

Thus, IF WE STRICTLY AND CONSISTENTLY FOLLOW THESE PRECAUTIONS, THE PROBABILITY IS VERY LOW THAT WE’LL CATCH COVID. If we don’t follow these precautions, all bets are off. (“All bets are off” is a slang expression indicating that no particular outcome is significantly more-probable than any other outcome. Hence, in such a circumstance, no one will bet on any outcome—all bets are off.)

2. The main topic

Now to the main topic: here in Part 2, we’ll review the first two formulations of the Moral Argument for God’s existence—examining the second formulation as expressed by Ravi Zacharias, who I describe as a “Christian apologist extraordinaire.” We’ll also delve into and resolve two more notable objections to the Moral Argument, particularly philosophical relativism, which essentially negates and thereby refutes—not the Moral Argument—but itself.

As I mentioned in Part 1, a “section” in my posts is a group of paragraphs delineated by a numbered sub-heading. There are nineteen sections to this post (Part 2), seventeen of which are substantive. (#18 is an offer to follow my blog and an explanation of the featured image; #19 is a list of good and relevant videos.)

3. A review of the objectivity of moral values and duties

Objective morality is an extremely important topic; the Moral Argument stands or falls upon it. In Part 1, I explained that, in the context of this Argument, a statement is considered “objective” if it’s true about reality, independently of human opinion or preference. For example, “The Planet Earth orbits around the Sun” is an objective truth; human opinion doesn’t affect it. Theists (of course, including Christians) believe that moral values and duties are objective in this sense; they’re not merely subjective impressions or personal preferences (like chocolate over vanilla), nor are they societal preferences (like driving on the right or left side of the road).

It’s not that the vast majority of us have voted for morals to be objective; it’s that we perceive them to be an integral part of reality. Most of us (with very few exceptions) perceive moral values and duties as an integral part of the way we interact with others; they are “built in” or intrinsic to our real experience, and THIS makes them “objective.” The rare person who is unable to feel guilt or remorse over a wrongdoing has always been seen as someone psychologically unable to sense what is normal.

The Yuck Factor

In Part 1, we also saw that the objectivity of moral values and duties may be clearly sensed by the “yuck factor.” Dr. Paul Copan, chair of philosophy and ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University, described this; he explained: “The ‘yuck factor’ is when we don’t even have to think through certain issues. We have a strong visceral revulsion against, say, rape or child abuse. We don’t hem and haw by saying, ‘Oh, well, maybe rape is right in some contexts.’ We know immediately, on a gut level, that rape is wrong. This is evidence that there are objective moral values that aren’t the product of sociobiological evolution. They are valid and binding for everyone, not just for some cultures. And we should take intuitions about these moral values—the ‘yuck factor’—seriously.” (Quoted from Dr. Copan by journalist Lee Strobel in The Case for the Real Jesus, Challenge #6, p. 238, Kindle Locations 4400-4404; I emphasized some sentences in bold.)

I pointed out that the BIGGEST “yuck factor” I know is Hitler’s Holocaust, which was a despicable and terrible evil—objectively and truly! Rarely has an evil of this magnitude ever occurred!

From the utter REVULSION that we feel when we think of the Holocaust, we should clearly understand that the moral duty to never commit murder is objectively-true, valid, and real. (The Holocaust – Facts, Victims, and Survivors)

The evolutionary explanation

In addition, we saw in Part 1 (in sections 13 through 15) that the evolutionary explanation is inadequate because it’s not an all-encompassing explanation: it can’t account for every aspect or feature of our moral experience. Therefore, it’s probably not the primary explanation; something else is the primary and better explanation, indicating the actual Source of objective morals.

For several reasons (that I specified in Part 1), I believe that this primary explanation is the theistic God. This reasoning led to the third formulation of the Moral Argument, which I formally presented (i.e. as a formal argument) in Part 1, section #16.

4. More on how we know that moral values are objective

This goes beyond what we discussed in Part 1. In an audio podcast (Questions on the Resurrection and the Moral Argument), Dr. William Lane Craig, a well-known philosopher and theologian, explained more-precisely how we know that moral values and duties are objective: “…in our moral experience, we apprehend a realm of objective moral values and duties that impose themselves upon us, and … most people recognize this. … It is the experience that is the appeal here: it is that we have a moral experience of objective values and duties.”

Continuing: “And then one gives examples to elicit this experience in the mind of the listener or the reader. For example, to think about someone who commits child molestation and torture and finally murder of a little child. It seems to me that anybody with a good moral sense recognizes that that’s not a morally indifferent act, that this shows itself to us as being something that is evil. And if the atheist says that this is not evil, then I simply say that that person’s moral perceptions are warped. He is like a blind person who can’t see, and there’s no reason to allow his impairment to cause me to doubt what I see very clearly and distinctly.”

Concluding: “…our moral beliefs; these impose themselves upon us; we don’t make them up; they impose themselves—that it’s good to be a loving and kind and caring person, and that it’s wrong to torture and kill another innocent human being. … Louise Antony, who I debated on this question of morality and God, put it very nicely; she said: ‘Any argument against the objective reality of moral values will be based on premises which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves!’ … And that’s why, frankly, most philosophers and ethicists do believe in the reality of objective moral values and duties. … As Louise Antony said, the objective reality of moral values is more obvious than any skeptical argument against them, and therefore, you’re going to go with the objective moral values rather than the nihilism.” (Questions on the Resurrection and the Moral Argument; I bolded some of the text for emphasis.)

5. The vigor of the protests

As I indicated in Part 1, section #3, I certainly believe it was objectively, morally wrong for that police officer to kill George Floyd, obviously without provocation or justification. Such behavior is objectively evil and reprehensible.

This is confirmed by the protests that have arisen over the murder, which fuel the Moral Argument. How? As I stated in Part 1, the strength and vigor of the moral values in the human heart (as evidenced by the strength and vigor of the protests) testify to the fact that these moral values are OBJECTIVELY REAL, not subjective, not mere personal preferences or societal conventions. If the morality we sense was merely subjective, the protests would have been much weaker, because they would have been based on a mere personal preference, like chocolate over vanilla. Neither would a societal convention—like driving on the right or left side of the road— prompt the strength and vigor of these protests!

This vigor supports the thesis (from Drs. Craig and Antony) that the obvious objective nature of moral values is stronger than any opposing theory that skeptics have formulated to explain that objectivity away. It’s much-more apparent that moral values are objective than it is that any opposing theory is true.

To the reader: if you believe with me that these moral values are objective and real—regardless of human opinion—then you believe in objective morality. The Moral Argument then demonstrates that, if you believe in objective morals, ipso facto—as an inevitable result—in order to be logically consistent, you should believe in God as well, for only He is the most-reasonable and all-encompassing explanation for these moral values.

6. A review of the first formulation

I explained the factors that establish the logical validity of the first, second, and third formulations in Part 1. I embedded the following video in Part 1’s blog page, to provide an understanding of the Moral Argument that’s supported and reinforced visually. This video is from Reasonable Faith, the organization founded by Dr. William Lane Craig, the prominent Christian scholar who I quoted earlier, in section #4. The video describes what I call (in these posts, parts 1, 2, and 3) the first formulation (out of five) of the Moral Argument (that I will present).

Click on the center of the following YouTube block to begin playing the embedded video (a video embedded in this blogpost page):

If, for any reason, the above video does not appear in your browser, the link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU. Associated videos are at https://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos.

The video presents the Moral Argument in three steps:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists. (This is also found in Dr. Craig’s book, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision, David C. Cook, 2010, Chapter 6, Kindle Locations 2075-2078)

Note: here’s an important distinction that I discussed in detail in Part 1 (in sections 9 & 10): as the video indicated, the Moral Argument does NOT claim that a person must BELIEVE in God in order to live a good, moral life; agnostics and atheists are perfectly capable of living good, moral lives because God has revealed objective moral values and duties to EVERY human. Instead, the Moral Argument claims that God must actually EXIST in order for objective moral values and duties to exist. And since they do, God exists.

7. Objection #2: the cultural context

(We covered objection #1, the evolutionary explanation for objective morals, in sections #13 through 16 of Part 1.)

Some skeptics will often raise two objections at this point. The first is that moral values differ from culture to culture. They will say, “In some cultures, people love their neighbors, while in other cultures, they eat them or go to war against them. This shows that moral values are subjective—a matter of personal perception—not objective. Each tribe or culture has its own moral values.”

Well, not precisely; this skeptical evaluation is an over-simplification. All cultures hold to the basic moral value of loving their neighbor. It’s just that different cultures have different definitions of WHO their neighbor is! The people they meet may be considered friends or neighbors or strangers or enemies (or even subhuman creatures!)—depending on the traditions, the beliefs, and resultantly the definitions adopted by a particular culture.

Cannibals, for example, love their neighbors—those living in their own village. However, those living in other villages may not be considered neighbors; they may be considered enemies or, sometimes, subhuman creatures! Therefore, cannibals may well believe it’s morally right to kill and eat these enemies or subhuman creatures—not because cannibals don’t love their neighbors, but because they redefine their neighbors!

Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, in their lay-friendly book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, present a related scenario: “…some believe that since Hindus revere cows and Americans eat them, there’s an essential difference between the moral values of Americans and Hindus. But the reason people in India consider cows sacred has nothing to do with a core moral value—it has to do with their religious belief in reincarnation. Indians believe that cows may possess the souls of deceased human beings, so they won’t eat them. In the United States, we do not believe that the souls of our deceased relatives may be in a cow, so we freely eat cows.”

Continuing: “In the final analysis, what appears to be a moral difference is actually an agreement—we both believe it’s wrong to eat Grandma! The core moral value that it’s wrong to eat Grandma is considered absolute by people in both cultures. They only disagree on whether Grandma’s soul is in the cow! They have different perceptions of the facts pertaining to the moral value, but fundamentally agree that the moral value must be upheld.” (I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Crossway Books, 2004, Chapter 7, under “Confusion #2—Absolute Morals vs. Changing Perceptions of the Facts”)

8. The helpful input of Dr. Copan and Inspiring Philosophy

Dr. Copan also commented on this question: “Cultures throughout the world and across the ages have held in common general principles of behavior. … People shouldn’t steal or inflict unnecessary pain on others; people should keep commitments and show kindness to the needy; people shouldn’t take human life unjustifiably; and so forth. … Cultures can’t escape the overarching reality of conscience and the recognition of moral failure. … Anyone with a functioning conscience can get many things right morally, even if specific cultural expressions of core moral truths vary.” (Copan, True for You, But Not for Me, Bethany House Publishers, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2009, Chapter 11, pp. 71-72, Kindle Locations 1051-1063; I changed two sentences to bold.)

In another source, he added: “While applications and expressions of moral principles may differ from culture to culture, there are basic moral principles that cut across cultural lines. What happens when we encounter (at least on the face of it) conflicting moral principles? We start with morally clear cases and work to the unclear. In light of apparent moral conflict, it would be a faulty jump to conclude that morality is relative. As lexicographer Samuel Johnson put it, ‘The fact that there is such a thing as twilight does not mean that we cannot distinguish between day and night.’” (Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science, edited by William A. Dembski and Michael R. Licona, Baker Books, 2010, Chapter 2, pp. 21-22, Kindle Locations 292-296; I changed two sentences to bold.)

Inspiring Philosophy

In addition, in the video Moral Realism: Defined, “Inspiring Philosophy” (i.e. Michael Jones) uses the term “moral realism” (i.e. the belief in objective moral values and duties) to make the following excellent point: “…we must realize, when someone says, ‘Moral realism must be false because there are various forms of morality around the world, depending on the culture’—they must realize this doesn’t show moral realism is false for the very same reason the existence of competing scientific theories does not show science is subjective or based on the culture or individual. In moral realism, this would only show humans are not perfect and not masters of understanding what moral facts are. Just like when various groups disagree about science, it only means we as humans have not mastered our understanding of the universe yet and need more data to settle disputes.” (Moral Realism: Defined; Inspiring Philosophy’s YouTube Channel is at https://www.youtube.com/user/InspiringPhilosophy)

This perspective is clear: just as scientists disagree on what some scientific truths are, so too do ethicists and the leaders of some cultures disagree on what some moral truths are. But, just as scientific disputes do not affect the reality of objective science, so too do moral disputes not affect the reality of objective morals; i.e. moral values and duties.

A foundational principle, then, is that virtually-all humans agree on a set of basic moral truths; areas of disagreement don’t obscure the agreement on this basic set. As Samuel Johnson observed, “The fact that there is such a thing as twilight does not mean that we cannot distinguish between day and night.”

9. Objection #3: philosophical relativism

The issue of philosophical relativism is also often raised as an objection by the skeptic. He will say, “Objective morality can’t be used in an argument for God because there is no objective morality or truth. All truth is relative or subjectively perceived; truth is in the eye of the beholder. What’s true for you may not be true for me and vice-versa.”

(One finds this relative “truth filter” typically applied to the subjects of ethics and religion—where many do not readily perceive objective truth, as I and knowledgeable theists and Christians do. One NEVER finds this relative “truth filter” applied to the subjects of mathematics and science, where objective truth is readily apparent.)

However, this is a serious objection: if objective truth doesn’t exist—if only in the subjects of ethics and religion—neither does objective morality. Consequently, the Moral Argument is refuted and torpedoed!

For that matter, ANY argument for God is refuted and torpedoed if there are no objective truths—that is, if truth is subjectively-perceived and purely a matter of what someone prefers to believe.

Any argument for God is also refuted if “truth” is supposedly determined by a society—whatever the majority of people believe has, at times, been held up to be true—such as, “The Earth is flat!” But that certainly wasn’t true! Even entire societies, or, as in this “Earth is flat” case, all humans, can make mistakes about truth.

Similarly, before 1900, every scientist believed that the entire universe was the size of our Milky Way Galaxy. They didn’t know that other galaxies, far beyond ours, existed. Societies and cultures can be mistaken about a “truth” that everyone (or, in some cases, the majority) accepts. One such “truth” today is that of philosophical relativism, as we shall see.

10. The first way that philosophical relativism logically collapses

Philosophical relativism logically collapses in two different ways. Here’s the first:

There are many obviously-objective truths that we believe and often act on—truths that would hurt us or others if we didn’t act on them. These truths CONTRADICT the basic assumption of philosophical relativism; i.e. that there are no objective truths. I refer to objective truths such as:

(1) The external world that I perceive is real and not an illusion; thus, I can meaningfully interact with it. Every evidence we have tells us that the external world is real; therefore, in the absence of a defeater (a valid reason or argument against this), we are rational to believe it as an objective truth. This is the MOST foundational, objective truth that promotes psychological health!

(2) Intelligent persons exist besides myself; therefore, I can meaningfully interact with them. Every evidence we have tells us that other people are real and not illusions; therefore, in the absence of a defeater, we are rational to believe this as an objective truth. This is the SECOND most-foundational, objective truth that promotes psychological health!

(3) My physical body requires nourishing food and sleep in order to maintain health (every evidence indicates this; we are rational to believe it). Therefore, I should consume nourishing food and go to bed at night in order to have adequate sleep.

(4) It’s warmer in summer than in winter (unless one lives near the Earth’s Equator, where it’s hot all the time). Therefore, in the summer, we should wear lighter clothing compared to the winter; we thus won’t be too hot in the summer nor too cold in the winter.

(5) If I drive a car without carefully looking both ways down the street (before I enter into traffic), both I and my car will be in danger OR I may endanger a pedestrian crossing the street; therefore, I should look both ways.

(6) The latest strain of the coronavirus (nCOV-2019) is real and potentially dangerous; therefore, in order to protect myself, I should practice the recommended precautions (the 4 w’s; see section #1).

(7) Another basic objective truth was provided by Dr. William Lane Craig in the video Relativism Refutes Itself; namely, the truth that “I have a head”—to which we could add arms, legs, hands, and feet!

10.3 Further observations

Hopefully, we consciously or subconsciously believe these objective truths and often act on them! Yet relativism essentially tells us that we can act however we wish because truth is relative; it’s whatever we prefer to believe. But doing this could easily endanger ourselves or others (psychologically or in other ways) if we disregarded the above truths and:

• If we didn’t meaningfully interact with the real world
• If we didn’t meaningfully interact with other people
• If we didn’t consume nourishing food and go to bed at night in order to have adequate sleep
• If we didn’t wear appropriate seasonal clothing (we’d get too hot or too cold)
• If we didn’t look both ways, before entering into traffic while driving a car
• If we didn’t practice the recommended precautions against the coronavirus
• If we never paid any attention to the objective fact that each one of us has a head, arms, legs, hands, and feet!

Other objective truths include:

• The Planet Earth revolves or orbits around the Sun, not vice-versa.
• No human being, by using ONLY his or her physical body, is capable of jumping from the Earth to the Moon! The use of a large rocket ship is required to transport any human (or humans) to the Moon.
• The Empire State Building is in New York City, not in Los Angeles, London, Paris, or Moscow.
• Animals intake oxygen and expel carbon dioxide in order to live and survive; plants intake carbon dioxide and expel oxygen to do the same.
• Every reader of this blog is reading this on a desktop computer or tablet computer or smart phone or similar device; these words do NOT appear out of thin air!

These and countless other statements are all obviously-objective, true beliefs that are perfectly rational to hold in the absence of a defeater (in the absence of a valid reason or argument against a particular belief).

Furthermore, EACH of these truths contradicts the basic assumption of philosophical relativism; i.e. that there are no objective truths. In many areas, reality is NOT whatever we would prefer to believe! Sometimes, reality is the OPPOSITE of what we’d prefer to believe!

We therefore ignore these truths—we ignore reality—at our own peril; if we consistently ignored reality, our very lives would be in danger and/or we’d endanger others. We can’t ignore objective reality consistently and not suffer the resulting consequences.

10.6 Professor Paul Copan on relativism

Professor Paul Copan is a recognized authority on relativism. As I mentioned, he holds the endowed Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University. He has written or edited over 25 books on the philosophy of religion, theology, science & religion, and ethics. He’s also authored scores of articles and reviews for philosophical journals and lectured at a number of notable institutions, including Harvard, Boston College, the State University of New York, and Moscow State University. In short, he’s an expert on truth and ethics—on what is true? And on what is ethical or moral?

I like the clarity of Professor Copan’s answers in journalist Lee Strobel’s book on a number of issues pertaining to Jesus: The Case for the Real Jesus (Zondervan, 2007). But before discussing Jesus, Lee and the Professor discussed philosophical relativism. Lee asked him: “What are the greatest shortcomings of relativism?”

Professor Copan replied: “Relativism falls apart logically when you examine it. As a worldview, it simply doesn’t work. For instance, the relativist believes that relativism is true not just for him but for every person. He believes that relativism applies to the non-relativist (‘true for you’), not just to himself (‘true for me’). The relativist finds himself in a bind if we ask him, ‘Is relativism absolutely true for everyone?’ If he says yes, then he contradicts himself by holding to an absolute relativism, which would be an oxymoron. To be consistent, the relativist must say, ‘Nothing is objectively true, including my own relativistic position, so you’re free to accept my view or reject it.’”

The Professor then cogently demonstrated that relativism is self-refuting: “There’s no reason to take seriously the claim that every belief is as good as every other belief, since this belief itself would be no better than any other. If we do take it seriously, it becomes self-refuting, because it claims to be the one belief everyone should hold to [while at the same time claiming that all truth is relative].The claims of the relativist are like saying, ‘I can’t speak a word of English,’ or, ‘All generalizations are false.’ His statements are self-contradictory. They self-destruct under examination.” (The Case for the Real Jesus, Challenge #6, pp. 234-235, Kindle Location 4328-4338; the words in the bracketed expression are mine, to provide crystal clarity.)

11. The second way that philosophical relativism logically collapses

Here are three definitions that will become relevant:

• A truth that’s objective is a truth that’s “out there” in the real world—it’s a fact accepted by all reasonable observers; it’s not influenced by people’s opinions. “The Planet Earth moves in an orbit around the Sun” is an objective fact. These are called “absolute truths” when they invariably apply to all of reality; e.g. “time and gravity exist”; “there are no square circles or round squares.”
• A truth that’s subjective is only in someone’s mind or in some people’s minds—it’s an opinion or personal perception. “Chocolate tastes better than vanilla” is a subjective perception; opinions vary.
• A “truth” that’s a societal convention—agreed upon by a society—is not an objective or absolute truth because a society could have chosen differently. For example, in some countries, people drive on the right side of the road, while in others, they drive on the left.

The second problem for relativists is that their favorite statement—“all truth is relative”—is presented as an objective truth. Otherwise, if it were presented as a relative or subjectively-perceived or observer-dependent claim, it would be optional for anyone to believe it; it could easily be disregarded as a personal preference that doesn’t apply to anyone who doesn’t want to hold to it (like “chocolate is better than vanilla”).

But, as the Professor stated above, “…the relativist believes that relativism is true not just for him but for every person.” Relativists believe and want EVERYONE else to believe that all truth is relative!

However, BECAUSE it’s presented as an objective truth, it then boomerangs upon and negates itself: the presumed objective nature of the claim makes it dissolve, evaporate, or collapse as a logical consequence!

WHY, precisely, does this happen? Because the relativist is essentially saying that THIS ONE TRUTH—that “all truth is relative”—is the ONLY objective truth that exists. All other truths are supposed to be relative or subjectively-perceived or, at the most, societal conventions, according to the relativist.

Why is this important? Because, if we accept (for the moment) that relativism is objectively true, there can then be NO OTHER OBJECTIVE TRUTHS to support (as evidence) this ONE supposedly-objective truth because the claim itself (that there are no objective truths other than this one statement, that “all truth is relative”) specifies that this is so! There is thus no evidence external to the statement or claim itself that implies that it’s true to ANY degree whatsoever!

The specifics of the second collapse

Therefore, this supposedly-objective truth (that “all truth is relative”) has no evidential basis on which to stand or by which it may be seen as justified or warranted or objectively true, because it denies that such a basis exists! (The claim itself, if true, necessitates that it’s not supported by any evidence.)

This leaves us only with the presumption that, because of a total lack of supporting evidence (according to the claim itself), it’s most-probably NOT TRUE in any realistic or objective sense. And thus, it most-probably IS a relative or subjectively-perceived assumption, which then can be easily disregarded (because it’s a personal preference that doesn’t apply to anyone who doesn’t want to hold to it).

Thus, the claim “all truth is relative” boomerangs upon itself and essentially dissolves, evaporates, or collapses upon close inspection; it essentially nullifies and refutes itself.

So do similar or logically-equivalent claims, like, “There are no absolute truths”—which, again, is stated as an objective truth. This means that it’s essentially saying, “There are no absolute truths, except for this one absolute truth—that there are no others.”

But again, this claim boomerangs upon itself because it’s presented as the ONLY objective truth that exists. Of course, then there can be NO OTHER OBJECTIVE TRUTHS to support (as evidence) this ONE supposedly-objective truth!

And so, this claim as well has no evidential basis on which to stand or by which it may be seen as justified or warranted or objectively true. This again leaves us only with the presumption that, because of a total lack of supporting evidence (according to the claim itself), it’s most-probably NOT TRUE; it’s most-probably only a relative or subjectively-perceived assumption. (Of course, these statements are confirmed by the obviously-objective truths that we believe and act on, as we saw in section #10.)

12. A formal argument refuting philosophical relativism

These points may be summarized in the following formal argument that refutes philosophical relativism:

1. The claims “all truth is relative” and “there are no absolute truths” are presented as absolute, objective statements of truth; all philosophical relativists WANT everyone to believe these claims as absolute truths.

2. Yet, if these statements are absolute and objective, according to what they declare (that “all truth is relative” and “there are no absolute truths”), they thereby exclude the possibility that other absolute, objective truths exist.

3. But if no other absolute, objective truths exist, then there are no other absolute, objective truths to support (as evidence) the (supposed) absolute and objective truths of philosophical relativism.

4. If there are no other absolute, objective truths to support (as evidence) the (supposed) absolute and objective truths of philosophical relativism, then there’s no evidence whatsoever that philosophical relativism is objectively true (other than its own claims that it’s true).

5. If there’s no evidence that philosophical relativism is objectively true (other than its own claims), the only reasonable and realistic presumption we can make is that, because of a total lack of supporting evidence, philosophical relativism is most-probably NOT TRUE in any realistic or objective sense.

6. If philosophical relativism is most-probably NOT TRUE in any realistic or objective sense, then it’s most-probably a relative or subjectively-perceived assumption.

7. If philosophical relativism is a relative or subjectively-perceived assumption, then it’s optional for us to believe it because it’s essentially a personal preference that doesn’t apply to anyone who doesn’t want to hold to it (like “chocolate is better than vanilla” or “vanilla is better than chocolate”).

8. These statements are confirmed by the fact that there are many obviously-objective truths that we believe and act on—truths that would hurt us or others if we didn’t act on them. These truths CONTRADICT the basic assumption of philosophical relativism; i.e. that there are no objective truths. (See section #10.)

13. A relativist might respond

A relativist might respond to me by saying: “If I believed what you say, I’d have no way to resolve my disagreements with people; these disagreements will continue to annoy us, and they will possibly grow.”

My response is that the disagreements won’t grow if you’re tolerant in the traditional sense: be NICE—be kind and considerate—towards those with whom you disagree; go out of your way to be nice, kind, and even helpful to them! You will likely find that some of them become your friends, even though (technically) you may still disagree. Through tolerance and kindness, friendship can become more important than the disagreement!

While agreeing with everyone you meet is a logical impossibility and absurdity, loving them with God’s love is a helpful and reasonable kindness which works towards a better relationship; it thus benefits both of you. Make tolerance, kindness, helpfulness, and friendship MORE IMPORTANT than the disagreement! You or he (or she) may eventually change your or his or her mind and dissolve the disagreement altogether!

Corresponding to this, Jesus did tell us to love everyone, even our enemies. He said: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5:43-45, ESV) And, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.” (Luke 6:27-28, ESV)

See more about philosophical relativism in Dr. Paul Copan’s insightful book, True for You, But Not for Me, Bethany House Publishers, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2009.

I also recommend Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek’s book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Crossway Books, 2004, especially (in this context) Chapter 1, under “The Road Runner Tactic” and “The Road Runner Goes to College.” They wrote about the saying: “‘It’s true for you but not for me!’ (Is that statement true just for you, or is it true for everyone?) ‘True for you but not for me’ may be the mantra of our day, but it’s not how the world really works. Try saying that to your bank teller, the police, or the IRS and see how far you get! Of course these modern mantras are false because they are self-defeating.” (Under “The Road Runner Goes to College.”)

14. Ravi Zacharias’ version of the second formulation, part 1

In Part 1, we saw that Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek described the second formulation of the Moral Argument thusly:

1. Every law has a law giver.
2. There is a Moral Law.
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver. (I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Crossway Books, 2004, Chapter 7, under “Is There a Standard?”)

They added: “If the first and second premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. Of course, every law has a law giver. There can be no legislation unless there’s a legislature. Moreover, if there are moral obligations, there must be someone to be obligated to.” (Ibid.)

The late Ravi Zacharias had his own version of the second formulation; he was a Christian apologist extraordinaire. His brilliant wit and perceptive insights encouraged and illuminated the hearts and minds of his many listeners—including my heart and mind, as I listened for years over the radio and then, later, by online streaming. For many years, Ravi was an excellent communicator who travelled the globe, logically defending the Christian Faith—sometimes in the most-hostile of settings. I heartily recommend his two audio-streaming pages: https://www.rzim.org/listen/just-thinking and https://www.rzim.org/listen/let-my-people-think, and his YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/rzimmedia.

Ravi’s version

In his book Cries of the Heart (Thomas Nelson, 2002), Ravi formulated his version of the Moral Argument thusly: “Some years ago I was speaking at the University of Nottingham, England, when a rather exasperated person in the audience made his attack upon God with this very question. C. S. Lewis reminds us that there is nothing so self-defeating as a question that is not fully understood when it is fully posed. This questioner was felled by his own question. ‘There cannot possibly be a God,’ he said, ‘with all the evil and suffering that exists in the world!’ I asked him if we could interact on this issue for a few moments. He agreed.”

Continuing: “When you say there is such a thing as evil, are you not assuming that there is such a thing as good?” I asked. ‘Of course,’ he retorted. ‘But when you assume there is such a thing as good, are you not also assuming that there is such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to distinguish between good and evil?’ ‘I suppose so,’ came the hesitant and much softer reply. This was an extremely important point to note as I made the argument. Most skeptics have never given this point a thought.”

15. Ravi Zacharias’ version of the second formulation, part 2

Continuing: “I therefore reminded this questioner, in his initial hesitancy, of the debate between the agnostic Bertrand Russell and the Christian philosopher Frederick Copleston. During the debate, Copleston asked Russell if he believed in good and bad. Russell admitted that he did, and Copleston responded by asking him how he differentiated between the two. Russell said that he differentiated between good and bad in the same way that he distinguished between colors. ‘But you distinguish between colors by seeing, don’t you?’ Copleston reminded Russell. ‘How then, do you judge between good and bad?’ ‘On the basis of feeling, what else?’ came Russell’s sharp reply.”

Continuing: “…How in the name of reason can we possibly justify differentiating between good and bad on the basis of feeling? Whose feeling? Hitler’s or Mother Teresa’s? In other words, there must be a moral law, a standard by which to determine good and bad. How else can one make the determination? My questioner finally granted that assumption without hesitation.”

Continuing: “…‘If, then, there is a moral law,’ I said, ‘you must posit a moral lawgiver. But that is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. If there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil. I am not sure what your question is!’ There was silence, and then he said, ‘What, then, am I asking you?’ The momentary humor was inescapable. He was visibly shaken that at the heart of his question lay an assumption that contradicted his conclusion.”

Concluding: “…In short, the problem of evil is not solved by doing away with the existence of God in the face of evil; the problem of evil and suffering must be resolved while keeping God in the picture.” (Ravi Zacharias, Cries of the Heart, Thomas Nelson, 2002, Chapter 3, pp. 66-68, Kindle Locations 1261-1298)

In other words, we can’t disprove God because evil exists; we wouldn’t have our knowledge and understanding of evil WITHOUT God—without our knowledge and understanding of the objective, intelligible, and rational Moral Law that God has imparted to virtually-every human!

16. Ravi Zacharias’ version expressed as a formal logical argument

Here’s Ravi’s essential reasoning expressed as a formal argument. The only change I made was that I felt it important to capitalize the term “Moral Law” to express the one universal Law that God has given us.

The fifth step of this argument is a direct quote from Ravi. I filled in step 2 with an explanation (of why good must exist if evil exists: “in order to recognize what is evil by contrast”) that Ravi didn’t supply, but which is so basic that I felt Ravi would agree with it. In step 4, the phrase “to serve as the Source of this Moral Law” is implied by Ravi’s statements. Other than these qualifications, the following points are as close to Ravi’s argument (in Cries of the Heart) as I could make them.

1. Some deny the existence of God because of the evil and suffering in this world. They believe that God would not allow such suffering.

2. But if evil exists, then good must exist also, in order to recognize what is evil by contrast.

3. But if both good and evil exist, then a Moral Law (exhibiting moral standards) must exist as well, on the basis of which to distinguish between good and evil.

4. But if a Moral Law exists, a Moral Lawgiver must exist as well, to serve as the Source of this Moral Law.

5. Therefore, “the problem of evil is not solved by doing away with the existence of God in the face of evil; the problem of evil and suffering must be resolved while keeping God in the picture.” (Cries of the Heart, Chapter 3, pp. 66-68; the Kindle Locations for the whole argument are 1261-1298.)

17. For specificity’s sake

I should add (for specificity’s sake) that it should be ideally understood that the Moral Law is objective, intelligible, and rational.

But if an objective, intelligible, and rational Moral Law exists, an objective, personal, intelligent, rational, and powerful Moral-Law-Giver must exist in order to be the Source of that objective, intelligible, and rational Moral Law AND to place this Law into the minds and hearts of every human on Earth! (PERSONS have moral values; things do not; the Source of the intelligible and rational Moral Law was not a mere force; the Source was a PERSON.)

In other words, an objective, intelligible, and rational Moral Law must have as its Source an objective, personal, intelligent, rational, and powerful Moral-Law-Giver—Someone having the characteristics of the theistic God!

Here’s an addendum: as I stated above, we can’t disprove God because evil exists; we wouldn’t have our knowledge and understanding of evil WITHOUT God—without our knowledge and understanding of the objective, intelligible, and rational Moral Law that God has imparted to virtually-every human!

18. Following my blog and the featured image

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox, within minutes after a new post is online.

---

The featured image

The featured image of this post (the photo above, that’s also behind or underneath the title, at the top of the page) is of a man standing in a mostly-dark church (except for a bright white-and-orange cross in the background), holding and reading a Bible. Photo credit: Gift Habeshaw, Unsplash.com.

As I mentioned in Part 1, the basic moral values found in the Bible that pertain to human interactions—values that most people believe to be objectively-true (particularly in the Ten Commandments and in the Sermon on the Mount)—mirror the SAME moral values found in the human heart. (Cf. Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21; Matthew 5:1-7:27)

19. Good and relevant videos

• Are There Objective Truths about God? Part 2 by Dr. William Lane Craig
• Relativism Refutes Itself by Dr. William Lane Craig
• The Truth Cannot Be All Relative – an interview with Ravi Zacharias  
• Is moral relativism livable? By Dr. William Lane Craig

Here’s an outstanding testimony from a former atheist; this is one of the best testimonies I’ve ever heard!

She tried to kill herself but God stopped her

Powerful reasons for the Shroud of Turin: Was the Shroud of Turin the Shroud of Jesus? By scholar Ben Witherington

Archeology is confirming Bible characters and places

• Alister McGrath: from atheist scientist to Christian theologian
• Aerospace scientist encounters Jesus Christ – Dr. Dragos Bratasanu testimony
• Five Reasons Why You Can Believe God Exists by Dr. William Lane Craig
• “This cannot be explained by science; this is a miracle from God!”
• When sheltering is a problem by Dr. Skip Heitzig
• The Ultimate Shelter by Dr. Skip Heitzig
• On Guard Conference: William Lane Craig – What is Apologetics? 
• On Guard Conference: Paul Copan – Can We Be Good without God?
• Two arguments for God: the Origin and Fine-Tuning of the Universe by Dr. William Lane Craig 
• Does New Zealand really need God? Questions for Dr. William Lane Craig
• An interview with William Lane Craig
• Why did God only reveal Himself to a small part of the world? Answered by Dr. William Lane Craig 
• Response to Pigliucci’s article on “Gods and Morality” by Dr. William Lane Craig
• Q&A from that actual debate between Dr. Craig and Dr. Louise Antony

Animated video: Moral Realism: Defined by Inspiring Philosophy (“Moral realism” here is the belief that “…moral judgments can be true or false … and that what makes them true is independent from people’s … beliefs, judgments or desires.” —Andrew Fisher; the video also makes the statements that, “Beyond our cognition there are actual moral facts we are discovering and learning about. We can tap into this through a cognitive sense. We can use these moral facts to better operate in reality.” Thus, “moral realism” is essentially the belief in objective moral values and duties.)

• Animated video: Moral Realism: Defended by Inspiring Philosophy
• Animated video: The Moral Argument by Inspiring Philosophy
• Animated video: A Critique of Moral Relativism by Inspiring Philosophy 

The following videos help support one’s emotions in this pandemic, help one’s understanding of biblical theism, and help one’s spiritual growth:

• Is There Meaning to Life? (Animated video)
• Why you should change your mind about Jesus by Dr. William Lane Craig
• What difference does it make if God exists? By Dr. William Lane Craig
• Are There Objective Truths about God? Part 1 by Dr. William Lane Craig
• Are There Objective Truths about God? Part 2 by Dr. William Lane Craig
• Why is the Christian Faith reasonable? By Dr. William Lane Craig
• Arguments for God (EPS Apologetics Conference) by Dr. William Lane Craig
• The Case for Christian Theism by Dr. William Lane Craig
• Bringing Hope to the COVID-19 Days Ahead by Dr. Anjeanette Roberts
• Come Alive Part A by Dr. Skip Heitzig
• Come Alive Part B by Dr. Skip Heitzig
• The Quarantined Life Part A by Dr. Skip Heitzig
• The Quarantined Life Part B by Dr. Skip Heitzig
• How to live and die well by Dr. Skip Heitzig