Absolutism and Relativism

[Oreoracle]

1. What do Christians tend to take too literally?

The concept of different realities. The phrase “different realities” is meant to simplify a concept that is harder to express exactly. But instead of taking that context into account, Christians attack it without thinking about what it might really mean.

It would be like a non-Catholic arguing that Catholics partaking in Holy Communion is an act of cannibalism because the wafer involved is taken to be “God’s flesh”. Obviously the phrase “God’s flesh” is meant to simplify a concept that would be harder to express exactly, and so you really can’t take the phrase at face value.

1. Are you referring to Catholic, Catholic dogma, Catholic laymen, Protestants; who?

Catholics, Protestants…religious people in general.

 

[David_Castlen]

The concept of different realities. The phrase “different realities” is meant to simplify a concept that is harder to express exactly. But instead of taking that context into account, Christians attack it without thinking about what it might really mean.

It would be like a non-Catholic arguing that Catholics partaking in Holy Communion is an act of cannibalism because the wafer involved is taken to be “God’s flesh”. Obviously the phrase “God’s flesh” is meant to simplify a concept that would be harder to express exactly, and so you really can’t take the phrase at face value.

Catholics, Protestants…religious people in general.

So, please clarify "different realities"???

 

[Oreoracle]

So, please clarify "different realities"???

It is a concept relativism is purported to imply. However, the phrase is more metaphorical in meaning than literal. If you aren’t one of the people that stimulates this ongoing misinterpretation of relativism’s meaning by taking “different realities” literally, then good for you. You needn’t worry about it.

 

[David_Castlen]

It is a concept relativism is purported to imply. However, the phrase is more metaphorical in meaning than literal. If you aren’t one of the people that stimulates this ongoing misinterpretation of relativism’s meaning by taking “different realities” literally, then good for you. You needn’t worry about it.

Thank you Oreoracle. You have given us two accidents of “different realities” but you have not given us its meaning in essence or composition. Can you please define “different realities” as what it is (composed of) and its essense?

 

[afiala2]

It is a concept relativism is purported to imply. However, the phrase is more metaphorical in meaning than literal. If you aren’t one of the people that stimulates this ongoing misinterpretation of relativism’s meaning by taking “different realities” literally, then good for you. You needn’t worry about it.

What is the metaphor?? Relativism doesn’t attempt to attain reality. It says well if that is what you think from your perspective than your right in this case, and what I think from my perspective is just as right because even though we are different we are both right.

Different realities is the metaphor?? What is it a metaphor of? You said it isn’t literal. Is it different realities are a metaphor for how each individal perceives reality, not that different realites actually exist? If that is the case, we all know people perceive reality differently. Catholics believe that no matter your perception, you don’t change reality, it is what it is.

Relativism is the concept that points of view have **no absolute truth **or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration (Wikipedia definition).

Catholics believe there is absolute truth. Things are either TRUE or false. Multiple conflicting things can’t both be equally valid, while relativism doesn’t directly claim this, it does state there is no absolute truth which causes everything to be subjective and all points of view have no absolute validity (or no validity?). 0=0, x=x, y=y, infinity=infinity. No validity or no way to define validity means by default everything is equal. So however you want to say it everything is valid, or everything is invalid, they are equal. But conflicting things can’t both be true. Either one is true and the other is false or they are both false (or at minimum not completely true or only partially true). A tree is 10 feet tall (all meaning at its highest point), one person says it is 9’ and one says it is 11’ (they are both wrong). One person says the sky is blue another says it is purple (both could be true or false depending on time of day and time of year-however most of the time the sky is obviously blue). Metaphorically speaking, a relativist argues that a 10’ tree is 9’ and 11’ at the same time because from those peoples perspectives that is how tall the tree is, but the absolutist says well all evidence (in this case a measuring stick) points towards it being 10’, how do you know, because we measured it to see.
However you want to say it, there is no way to say one view is better than the other from a relativist perspective making every point of view equal. So yes relativism denies the equally valid position, but in its practice it will indirectly lead its practitioners to view different positions equally. Without absolute truth, how can one understand, the concept of a true/false test (as someone else already said) or how does one pursue knowledge? Information isn’t knowledge; there is bad information or misinformation, meaningless and useless information. Without Truth, you can’t have knowledge. A teacher could start saying Albert Einstein was an astronaut and that is why he knew so much about the universe; but that wouldn’t be spreading knowledge, it wouldn’t be true.

Peoples’ opinions should be listened too, but without truth as your guide you can fall into listening and putting into practice bad advice, opinions when other opinions are better or MORE VALID. One person’s perspective can be distorted because of negative experiences that lead them to not have a full understanding of reality. The girl who was kidnapped/raped and had her kidnapper’s children comes to mind. Her understanding of reality was a lot different than most girls her age. Most people would argue what was done to her was wrong. Some people don’t, and what if she didn’t? Does that mean it is ok to kidnap and rape if someone thinks it is?

 

[afiala2]

As I understand it, anyway, relativism is based on the idea that our opinions are so closely entwined to our perspectives that we can’t help but be somewhat biased. For example, to a child, parents are overbearing, but to the parents, they are merely being protective. The child is heedless, not so much because of his ignorance, but because kids simply want to have fun in spite of danger; on the other hand, the parents are driven by maternal and paternal instincts, which aren’t entirely rational, and therefore they may be overreacting. Notice that neither of these perspectives is necessarily wrong with respect to the facts, but both are inclined toward the interests of the people who hold them.

It’s really a very simple idea, but if you take the “different realities” thing too literally, as Christians are wont to do, you end up missing the point and looking like a fool.

Obviously different realities don’t exist. No one is saying that. You keep saying different realities, what does that mean? Because there is only one reality, this one we are all in together, there can’t be mulitple opinions that differ and conflict with equal validity. Without an absolute or ultimate truth, how can anyone know what is more valid than something else? How does relativism help humans discover reality better than absolutism?

Absolutism=absolute truth, Relativism=no absolute truth; since we all know what a true/false test is lets take a one question one. True or False, Absolute truth exists. (hint: Is it absolutely true you are reading this right now?)

How you answer this question is how you answer this debate. Also the relativist has to acknowledge the absolutist’s answer as being equally valid because it is a point of view like theirs from their perspective. There is no way to say one view is better than the other from a relativist perspective making every point of view equal. SO true and false are the two answers and they have to both be correct I guess or both incorrect?? I get confused with relativist “logic”.

 

[Oreoracle]

What is the metaphor??

Our viewpoints are affected by our perspectives to some extent. If you take two people with vastly different perspectives, it can seem as though they don’t even live in the same world at times, hence the phrase “different realities”. Obviously they do live in the same world, which is why it’s only a metaphor.

An obvious example of this is politics. Listen to a lower-middle class citizen offer his views of politics and then listen to an affluent businessman. They might be aware of the very same facts pertaining to their nation’s politics. They might be equally rational. But in spite of that, they will almost certainly have different opinions.

If you consider it a huge assumption that two people can be equally knowledgeable and rational, how about this: Suppose we have a coin that is red on one side, and blue on the other. The coin is held in such a way that I only see one side and you see the other. We are both asked what color half of the coin is. Could we not both be right in spite of giving different answers?

Relativism doesn’t attempt to attain reality. It says well if that is what you think from your perspective than your right in this case, and what I think from my perspective is just as right because even though we are different we are both right.

Interestingly enough, the special theory of relativity says something similar about time. You and I could measure the duration of the same event when we’re moving at different speeds and end up with different results. Yet, we would both be right in spite of having different answers. Furthermore, length and mass are also subject to this relativity.

The problem is that some people assume that an issue is absolute in nature when it’s really subjective. The example I gave about time would be perplexing if we didn’t know that time is an experience that varies from subject to subject, i.e., that it is subjective.

Catholics believe that no matter your perception, you don’t change reality, it is what it is.

For the record, I’ve never met a relativist who contended that reality changed based on our perception of it. Relativism, as I’ve known it, only applies to subjective matters. This might seem obvious, but you wouldn’t believe how many people think their opinions of music, literature, morality, etc., are absolute and shouldn’t vary based on perspective.

Relativism is the concept that points of view have **no absolute truth **or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration (Wikipedia definition).

The same paragraph of the same article goes on to state that “The term is often used to refer to the context of moral principle, where in a relativistic mode of thought, principles and ethics are regarded as applicable in only limited context.” It says in the next paragraph that “Relativism is sometimes (though not always) interpreted as saying that all points of view are equally valid, in contrast to an absolutism which argues there is but one true and correct view.” (emphasis added by me)

So you see, Christians are just attacking the least tenable form of relativism instead of the form that most people actually use. They are, in essence, making strawman arguments against the majority of relativists.

0=0, x=x, y=y, infinity=infinity. No validity or no way to define validity means by default everything is equal.

I’m not sure what good bringing up equations does here. Three of those equations are true by our established standards of validity. The only one that’s wrong is “infinity=infinity”.

 

[afiala2]

Relativism is the concept that points of view have **no absolute truth **or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration (Wikipedia definition).

I forgot to say** I added **the emphasis, just trying to say that Relativism states that there is no absolute truth.

 

[afiala2]

Our viewpoints are affected by our perspectives to some extent. If you take two people with vastly different perspectives, it can seem as though they don’t even live in the same world at times, hence the phrase “different realities”. Obviously they do live in the same world, which is why it’s only a metaphor.

So when I said:

Different realities is the metaphor?? What is it a metaphor of? You said it isn’t literal. Is it different realities are a metaphor for how each individal perceives reality, not that different realites actually exist? If that is the case, we all know people perceive reality differently.

before the answer is yes that is the metaphor.

 

[Oreoracle]

Your post (#28) indicates that you did not understand my objection. Read my reply again. Relativism (as most people understand it) states that absolute truths do not exist only under particular circumstances. As I pointed out, relativism is usually applied in ethics, not in science. Only a small group of relativists hold the view you are talking about. In fact, what you’re doing is just as flawed as someone attacking all Christians with an argument against Catholicism. The problem, of course, is that rebutting Catholicism is not sufficient to rebut Christianity, because Catholicism is only a sect of Christianity, and is not equal to it.

Likewise, the “absolute relativism” you’re talking about is just an obscure version of the more commonly held relativism, and is not equal to it. Attacking the former is not sufficient to refute the latter. They are different.

 

[afiala2]

If you consider it a huge assumption that two people can be equally knowledgeable and rational, how about this: Suppose we have a coin that is red on one side, and blue on the other. The coin is held in such a way that I only see one side and you see the other. We are both asked what color half of the coin is. Could we not both be right in spite of giving different answers?
QUOTE]

In this example this assumes you are only reaching for 50%, not 100%. A rational person in the example would know they only know 50% of the story. While it is true both would be correct, it is also true neither knows for sure what the other half of the coin is. So you are both equally right but are only completely right about 50%. That is my point relativists aren’t searching for the other 50% of reality, they are content with the 50% or less or whatever they know. So that is how they see reality incomplete or in some cases distorted. One sees red and starts to think the whole coin is red or vice versa, because that is all they see. But reality is the coin is red and blue.

This is where you are replacing reality with perspective or making a perspective equal to actual reality (making 50% equal to 100%) (how some people argue that a relativist is arguing multiple realities). How does the person seeing blue and the person seeing red determine the whole (or discover reality) without using truth, trust, and trustworthiness of individuals involved in making the decision?

Perspectives of different sides of the coin: Some think it is ok to kill innocent people, others don’t. Equal rationale and knowledge would not allow two people to come to the different conclusions on this matter. I would argue people can rationalize anything in their own minds, but their own rationalizations don’t make their perspective equally valid just because they have them. At the end of the day the coin is blue and red, however you want to look at it. Peoples’ perspectives are formed by what they CHOOSE to see. If you chose to see blue you see blue if you choose to see red you see red, or if you come “back to LIFE, back to reality”, you see it is a two sided coin. That is why a blue seer and a red seer need a third person to tell them it is red and blue and then showed them so they can see reality. They would discover reality and see the full picture. Things are either true or false. In the example the two people are both half right about the whole coin. Things can be completely true or completely false, or anywhere in between. Having this scale, is how one can determine what course of action one can take for being in harmony with reality. If it is true it is real(ity), if it is false you are “chasing your tail (tale)”.

 

[afiala2]

]QUOTE=Oreoracle;8240465]Interestingly enough, the special theory of relativity says something similar about time. You and I could measure the duration of the same event when we’re moving at different speeds and end up with different results. Yet, we would both be right in spite of having different answers. Furthermore, length and mass are also subject to this relativity.

The problem is that some people assume that an issue is absolute in nature when it’s really subjective. The example I gave about time would be perplexing if we didn’t know that time is an experience that varies from subject to subject, i.e., that it is subjective.

(Please take no offense at my comments, as I am simply trying to find the truth. I mean no offense, I am only seeking enlightenment. I may be a bit brash sometimes. From my perspective the goal is to seek the truth, and lead others to it. Their is a belief of brotherly love that Christians have and that is the driving force behind much that we do.)

You have me intrigued my friend, please explain how it is that time passes at different speeds for different people. Or how can people move at different speeds (and I don’t mean running vs. walking)?

How is time subjective? Isn’t it measable? Time passes at the same rate for everybody, doesn’t it? Catholics belive time is different for God versus us men on earth, but for us men on earth only specifically please explain further?

I like how you think “outside the box”. Their is good in this thought processes. Expand to the limits is what it is all about to me too. Great minds, think alike.

But how can different answers, both be right? Give me an example when looking at the whole picture.

 

[afiala2]

The same paragraph of the same article goes on to state that “The term is often used to refer to the context of moral principle, where in a relativistic mode of thought, principles and ethics are regarded as applicable in only limited context.” It says in the next paragraph that “Relativism is sometimes (though not always) interpreted as saying that all points of view are equally valid, in contrast to an absolutism which argues there is but one true and correct view.” (emphasis added by me)

So you see, Christians are just attacking the least tenable form of relativism instead of the form that most people actually use. They are, in essence, making strawman arguments against the majority of relativists.

One correct view, this is referring to absolute truth. As I have already pointed out.

What is it that the majority of relavists believe that is different than denying an absolute truth’s existance?

If you deny absolute truth don’t you deny the existance of truth period?
Doesn’t the denial of truth render all knowledge obsolete?
There would be no way of knowing what is correct without the basic knowledge of true and false classifications, wouldn’t there be?

 

[afiala2]

I’m not sure what good bringing up equations does here. Three of those equations are true by our established standards of validity. The only one that’s wrong is “infinity=infinity”.

The equations are saying that a value will ultimately (I know relativists don’t like that word-sorry) be placed on perspectives like it or not. Whether the value is zero or infinitity or anywhere in between, there is no way of determining value, so all perspectives will ultimatley be given the same value (whatever it is) with relativism. Infinity is to be taken as in forever and ever AMEN-Truly forever!

Infinity (symbol: ∞) is a concept in many fields, most predominantly mathematics and physics, that refers to a quantity without bound or end.

If an equation is balanced it isn’t wrong. Both sides equal each other=equation. In this case, both sides of the equation are IDENTICAL that you call wrong. Not following your logic.

There would be no way of determining a ‘rank’ of validity of view points with relativism. That is what the equations mean, no way to determine whether zero or infinity or anywhere in between; there would be no way of saying one is better than the other. Please tell me how optimum viewing of reality would be accomplished through relativism. Without a “pecking order”, everything will be by default equal. What ‘scale’ does relativism use that isn’t based on how true a view point is? If there is no such ‘scale’ then there is no way to determine what is reality or what is more ‘in tune’ with reality.

Finding harmony with reality should be the goal shouldn’t it be? If not why are you trying to lead people away from reality?

 

[afiala2]

Your post (#28) indicates that you did not understand my objection. Read my reply again. Relativism (as most people understand it) states that absolute truths do not exist only under particular circumstances. As I pointed out, relativism is usually applied in ethics, not in science. Only a small group of relativists hold the view you are talking about. In fact, what you’re doing is just as flawed as someone attacking all Christians with an argument against Catholicism. The problem, of course, is that rebutting Catholicism is not sufficient to rebut Christianity, because Catholicism is only a sect of Christianity, and is not equal to it.

Likewise, the “absolute relativism” you’re talking about is just an obscure version of the more commonly held relativism, and is not equal to it. Attacking the former is not sufficient to refute the latter. They are different.

Why does ethics and science have different rules when applying to what is true? EVERYTHING is a part of reality! Do you disagree? …aparently so.

So ethics, ETHICS don’t apply to absolute truth, but science does?

Either absolute truth exists or it doesn’t. Their are no particular circumstances. You can’t make special distinctions between different parts of reality, at least not on a logical basis. The same UNIVERSAL laws apply to everything and everyone, that is reality. Changing the subject doesn’t make something ‘immune’ to the laws of nature.

So give me ethcial examples, I have already given you one (sides of a coin). Ethical examples that pertain to the whole, or pertain to reality.

 

[Oreoracle]

]QUOTE=Oreoracle;8240465]You have me intrigued my friend, please explain how it is that time passes at different speeds for different people.

This article will probably explain it better than I could: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Consequences

Pay particularly close attention to the “consequences” section. All of these have been verified experimentally as well as mathematically.

Or how can people move at different speeds (and I don’t mean running vs. walking)?

Well, as you’ll see, relativity only becomes noticeable at significant fractions of the speed of light. However, very small differences in the experience of time can be measured with extremely accurate clocks. It has been shown that a person travelling by airplane will experience a few nanoseconds of time less than a person who is at rest.

Regarding your quote, technically a person who is running is experiencing less time than a person who is walking, but the difference wouldn’t be noticeable.

How is time subjective? Isn’t it measable?

Yes, but as it turns out, even if two people at different speeds measure the duration of an event correctly, the results would still be different. Since time varies from observer to observer (at different speeds), it is subjective. Surprisingly though, getting different measurements of time does not result in any inconsistencies in physics.

I like how you think “outside the box”. Their is good in this thought processes. Expand to the limits is what it is all about to me too. Great minds, think alike.

Thank you.

But how can different answers, both be right? Give me an example when looking at the whole picture.

And that, my friend, is the surprising thing. There isn’t a whole picture with regard to time. There is no such thing as “absolute time”. However, differing measurements don’t produce inconsistencies, because the special theory of relativity takes the different speeds into account. I’m not quite educated enough (yet) to explain why, but trust me on this one.

What is it that the majority of relavists believe that is different than denying an absolute truth’s existance?

Basically, relativists are saying that “truth” only applies to certain fields, e.g., science and math, but not other fields, such as ethics, art, etc. I mean, you wouldn’t say that a painting is beautiful, and that your opinion is absolutely true, right? You would agree that different people simply see things differently when it comes to aesthetics, even if their knowledge and rationality are equal. The same applies to ethics. You can take two more or less equally knowledgeable and rational people from different societies and they would have different notions of what is moral. It’s not that one understands more of some knind of “objective morality”, becase their knowledge is equal. It just boils down to the fact that they have different preferences, and therefore different opinions on ethics.

Based on the amount of diagreement in the world pertaining to what is right and wrong, do you find it surprising that our conception of morality is dependent on our perspectives?

If you deny absolute truth don’t you deny the existance of truth period?

Well, I phrase things differently than most relativists. I wouldn’t say that some moral statements are “true for you”, I would just say that moral statements don’t have truth values. I think that, in spite of the differences in phrasing, we’re essentially driving at the same point, though.

If an equation is balanced it isn’t wrong. Both sides equal each other=equation. In this case, both sides of the equation are IDENTICAL that you call wrong. Not following your logic.

Well, infinity isn’t a precisely defined “value”. For example, two infinite values can be of different sizes, and both would be expressed by the same symbol. For example, there are an infinite number of integers, and an infinite number of odd numbers, but you wouldn’t say that both of those infinite values are equal.

I hope I’ve answered most of your questions. I’m running late for something.

 

[sedonaman]

We all agree that it makes no sense. However, the idea that my reality is not your reality is very prevalent in the thinking relativists. …

There is a story about Barbara Walters’ eulogizing Peter Jennings at his memorial after his passing away. She unwittingly gave away the Leftist media’s secret while supposedly heaping high praise on the recently deceased Jennings. Between gushes of admiration and sighs of sorrow, Walters waxed poetic about this Canadian-born socialist. On and on Walters went until, near the end, she offered the highest praise a Leftist could fathom: “What made Peter so great,” she said, “was that he knew there was no such thing as the truth.”

If there is no such thing as the truth, then what was Jennings using as the basis for his reporting? He made it up? And if there is no truth, then how can Walters claim what she said is true? She can’t; therefore, she contradicted herself.

And so it is with so many other relativistic statements. How do we treat the statement, “Truth is relative” ? If it is relative then its claim has to be relative to something. What?

Relativism is a current fad in academia, where ideas are born and migrate out to the population at large. People adopt these ideas because of their academic endorsement, and who wants to be thought of as un-enlightened? One of the forms of relativism is polylogism, literally “many logics”.

Polylogism

Polylogism is the belief that different people or groups have different forms of logic. Since logic is the art of non-contradiction, polylogism can have only two possible meanings. Either reality is different for each group, or logic is a loose term for method of acquiring knowledge. The latter, though, is not how it is used. Those speaking of polylogism state that the conclusions from the different logics are different. This means that although they both claim to be methods of acquiring knowledge, the truth of the knowledge is different for different groups. This can mean only that reality is different for the different groups.

Polylogism is an absurd idea. It hides behind a more realistic idea, though. People can acquire knowledge in different ways. There are various methods one can use in approaching truth. Some of these methods are legitimate while others are not. Polylogism pretends to encompass the legitimate methods by claiming different cultures are more prone to using particular methods.

This is just camouflage. Polylogism is nothing but social subjectivism. It claims that knowledge is whatever you want it to be, but applies it to groups. Cultures, tribes, or races are the deciders of truth, and reality conforms to their views. What’s true for a Greek philosopher is not [necessarily] true for an Eastern philosopher. This does not mean that the two believe different things. It means that the two are both right, even though they contradict one another. It is a denial of the Law of Identity.

Polylogism is not a philosophy or an epistemological theory. It is an attitude of narrow-minded fanatics, who cannot imagine that anybody could be more reasonable or more clever than they themselves. Nor is polylogism scientific. It is rather the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos.

solohq.com/Objectivism101/Irrational_Polylogism.shtml

I highly suspect that claims of truth being relative, or non-existent, are attacks on religion in general and Catholicism in particular, because Jesus said, “I am the truth.” To buy into relativism is to deny Jesus.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Truth can be defined by religion, and when it is it tells us something.
Science can tell us about the real world. It never claims to hold all powerful knowledge one must believe in. It keeps seeking it.

 

[afiala2]

Truth can be defined by religion, and when it is it tells us something.
Science can tell us about the real world. It never claims to hold all powerful knowledge one must believe in. It keeps seeking it.

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said it best (this might not be an exact quote) when he said, “the truth is the truth even if no one believes it and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.”

Whether religion or science there is truth. Seeking the truth should be the goal in both instances. When seeking the truth, one finds a deeper understanding of the subject of study no matter the discipline. A disciple of Christ seeks the truth. That is why subjects that are taught are referred to as disciplines, because it is a system and without adhering to the system of knowledge it won’t make any sense. Truth is the absolute thing everything adheres too or knowledge systematically adheres to the truth. Otherwise it isn’t knowledge it is a lie or imaginary. Relativists seem to be making a defined religious statement that truth doesn’t exist when ethics and morals are involved (doesn’t mean it is true), similar to an atheist who denies God exists.

When looking at the truth you have to look at all the facts. Though science has research to back claims, you also have to evaluate motivation and take into account independent testing to come to a complete decision on the matter. It is often to whose opinion you listen to on a particular subject that leads you to your own conclusions on what is you think is true. You have to look at expertise and/or authority when coming to these conclusions and how those people got their expertise and/or authority to begin with. Who you listen to and why, shapes your opinins about truth (even if you stop calling it truth it is still true and you are still using it as a basis to make your decisions, otherwise your imagination is out of control if you don’t think you are subject to reality same way everyone else is).

Just because someone emphatically says something and everyone believes it, no matter the subject including religion doesn’t mean it is true. Using logic helps. Without logic, you don’t have knowledge. Relativism appears to be illogical in every sense of the word, it more or less says there is no valid or correct reasoning with regards to ethics (or if it claims it against any subject). Logic involves correct reasoning and valid understanding of a subject. So either revelatists are illogical and/or they are accusing anyone with any ethical or moral beliefs as illogical. Either way I don’t see their logic.

Lets say for the sake of argument absolutism isn’t the logical stance and relativism is. That means whether or not you are a mass murderer is irrelivant. It is a choice the murderer makes and sense it doesn’t matter what anyone does it is ok. This seems like an argument to de-evolutionize into animals to me.

Now lets use correct reasoning or logic. Absolute Truth time: true or false, it is ok for someone to start going around and killing innocent people (like a serial killer will kill women with red hair because they remind them of their mother and no other apparent reason, or Hilter killed people just because the were Jews). You can’t give the answer of both logically, it HAS TO BE true or false. I would obviously say the answer is false, it is not a right or correct action for someone to be a mass murderer (or a murderer at all, whether it is legal or illegal). If someone answers it is true, you can argue that leads to the same conclusion as before it is illogical we would be de-evolutionizing into animals.

So you see whether you condone incorrect behaviors (thinking it is ok for people to be mass murderers) or simply condone it by the indifference of relativism, it has the same result. Neither is a logical choice, unless your intention is chaos. And then we could argue being in favor of chaos is illogical as well.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said it best (this might not be an exact quote) when he said, “the truth is the truth even if no one believes it and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.”

Whether religion or science there is truth. Seeking the truth should be the goal in both instances. When seeking the truth, one finds a deeper understanidng of the subject of study no matter the discipline. A disciple of Christ seeks the truth. That is why subjects that are taught are referred to as disciplines, because it is a system and without adhering to the system of knowledge it won’t make any sense. Truth is the absolute thing everything adheres too or knowledge systematically adheres to the truth. Otherwise it isn’t knowledge it is a lie or imaginary. Relativists seem to be making a defined religious statement that truth doesn’t exist when ethics and morals are involved (doesn’t mean it is true), similar to an atheist who denies God exists.

When looking at the truth you have to look at all the facts. Though science has research to back claims, you also have to evaluate motivation and take into account independent testing to come to a complete decision on the matter. It is often to whose opinion you listen to on a particular subject that leads you to your own conclusions on what is you think is true. You have to look at expertise and/or authority when coming to these conclusions and how those people got their expertise and/or authority to begin with. Who you listen to and why, shapes your opinins about truth (even if you stop calling it truth it is still true and you are still using it as a basis to make your decisions, otherwise your imagination is out of control if you don’t think you are subject to reality same way everyone else is).

Just because someone emphatically says something and everyone believes it, no matter the subject including religion doesn’t mean it is true. Using logic helps. Without logic, you don’t have knowledge. Relativism appears to be illogical in every sense of the word, it more or less says there is no valid or correct reasoning with regards to ethics (or if it claims it against any subject). Logic involves correct reasoning and valid understanding of a subject. So either revelatists are illogical and/or they are accusing anyone with any ethical or moral beliefs as illogical. Either way I don’t see their logic.

Lets say for the sake of argument absolutism isn’t the logical stance and relativism is. That means whether or not you are a mass murderer is irrelivant. It is a choice the murderer makes and sense it doesn’t matter what anyone does it is ok. This seems like an argument to de-evolutionize into animals to me.

Now lets use correct reasoning or logic. Absolute Truth time: true or false, it is ok for someone to start going around and killing innocent people (like a serial killer will kill women with red hair because they remind them of their mother and no other apparent reason, or Hilter killed people just because the were Jews). You can’t give the answer of both logically, it HAS TO BE true or false. I would obviously say the answer is false, it is not a right or correct action for someone to be a mass murderer (or a murderer at all, whether it is legal or illegal). If someone answers it is true, you can argue that leads to the same conclusion as before it is illogical we would be de-evolutionizing into animals.

So you see whether you condone incorrect behaviors (thinking it is ok for people to be mass murderers) or simply condone it by the indifference of relativism, it has the same result. Neither is a logical choice, unless your intention is chaos. And then we could argue being in favor of chaos is illogical as well.

Logical fallacy.
Either or is not going to cut it. And you know that.