Anti-philosophical-relativism page

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

Since a significant number of people today believe the claims of philosophical relativism, I thought it advisable to put the following reasoning (and formal, logical argument in section #4) on this separate page, so that it might be easily and directly accessed.

A “section” in this blog is a group of paragraphs delineated by a numbered heading. The following paragraphs are from sections #9 through 13 of my seventh post, “Part 2 of the Moral Argument: Ravi Zacharias’ perspective and the objection of philosophical relativism.” On this page, I’ve renumbered them as sections #1 through 5. I’ve added a sixth section, on relevant videos, as well.

Since the main topic in my seventh post was the Moral Argument for God’s existence, I’ve kept that as the initial perspective from which I then venture into an in-depth consideration of philosophical relativism.

1. Introducing philosophical relativism

The issue of philosophical relativism is often raised as an objection by a skeptic to the Moral Argument. 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.

2. 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.

(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!

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.

Professor Paul Copan on relativism

Professor Paul Copan is a recognized authority on relativism. 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.)

3. 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 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-existent 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.

4. 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 #2.)

5. 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!

Correspondingly, 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.” (From Geisler and Turek’s book, Chapter 1, under “The Road Runner Goes to College.”)