Is it possible to have a meaningful discussion about religion with a relativist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Contra_Mundum_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Contra_Mundum_1

Guest
I’m all up for discussion and explaining Christianity to atheists, agnostics and other non-believers, but what I find frustrating is that people I encounter are simply not open to a conversation at a certain level. I am not the type to start these discussions and only engage in them when asked about my faith. Thus I don’t understand why my answers are always met with “It all depends on the person” or “Great that this works for you”. These are not arguments. This is unthinking, immature relativism grounded in nothing. Why do these people bother asking about my faith if they have nothing to say in response? After expressing their relativist position they tend to change the topic. At least on this forum we encounter non-believers who are interested in having a discussion and are prepared to use logic. I have no idea what to do with these 'whateverisms" I encounter in real life.

Any suggestions on how to steer these conversations in a meaningful direction that will allow me to discuss religious belief in a more sophisticated way?

Thank you!
 
I’m also interested in this question. Discussions tend to get bogged down when people ask you “which morality” you refer to when speaking of moral truths. I try to explain that people know certain things are wrong but we are all good at lying to ourselves. Then they want examples of things we all know in our hearts is wrong and it’s usually abortion and they shut down…or say we can’t know what’s in people’s hearts and can’t say that certian truths are in our hearts.

I know how to disprove relativism: the statement “it is all relative” is an absolute statement. I think though that most people have no idea they are relativists and if you disprove it, would just deny their relativism.

So basically it is tough!
 
Erine,

I agree that most people don’t realise they are relativists. My theory is that people are not challeneged by popular culture to really think and are not capable of following a certain logic and making an argument. It is all about feelings and desires. I understand it is easier to not worry about God and see religion as a social club where like minded people meet, or something akin to a self-help manual. When they encounter those who have religious faith that goes beyond what feels good at this moment, they don’t know how to respond to that and offer “whatever works for you” as an answer.

I had one of those conversations today. I can see that this friend is curious about my faith and is trying to understand, but is unwilling to really listen to what I have to say. I wonder why. Is it scary to hear someone talk in absolute terms? What if I said that there are objective criteria for determining what is good, moral, true and beautiful? Would that make her think about her own relativism as weak and possibly empty? Is this what it is all about? People don’t even want to consider the possibility of objective truth and reject any suggestion of it. I guess it is preferable to be one’s own god. It is the garden of Eden story over and over again…
 
Some religious people are relativists, too, only in a more insidious way. I have a friend, an evangelical protestant, who is the most intellectually dishonest person I’ve ever met. She can justify absolutely anything, even her marital infidelity (she is separated from her husband and seeing another man), by saying ‘the Bible says that I’m supposed to be able to make these decisions without condemnation’. Seriously. Indeed, she has a spectacular array of self-justifying self-deceptions at her disposal. She goes to church every Sunday, is culturally and politically conservative, and is a Bible-believer.

Sometimes we can only pray. Ultimately everything, including the exercise of reason, rests on matters of the heart.
 
erine said:
I know how to disprove relativism: the statement “it is all relative” is an absolute statement.
Click to expand...
I believe it was G.K. Chesterton who responded to the claim that ‘truth is relative’ by asking:

To *what *is it relative?
 
Relativism is relativey easy if you know it by another related name called rationalization for which there relatively is an excuse for anything relating to the desire of the person.

Alias Santa is still alive and kicking.
 
Fred,

I agree with that. In the end it seems that desire always generates these rationalisations. It is not honest or logical. I don’t think it is possible to discuss faith on that level. What always amazes me is how incoherent this process of rationalising can be, people contradict their own beliefs when it suits them to do so. For example, the friend I mentioned in the previous post was trying to convince me that cohabiting was the same as being married. But in the course of the same conversation she was telling me of a situation her boyfriend was in that required her to share in some responsibilities in legal matters. She was outraged because, as she put it, it’s not like they are married. This kind of reasoning leaves me baffled.
 
When you’re having a discussion with a relativist and they comment kindly, “Okay, if that works for you”, they are usually thinking, what a load of nonsense, but they’re trying to be open minded. 😛

I think the best way to discuss religion with a relativist is to first find some common ground. For example, it is wrong to be unnecessary mean to people. So you might say, “As a Christian, I am taught to love my neighbor as myself”.

The way to really open their minds about Christianity in my opinion is not to use logic, but to live an exemplary life and comment, when asked on why you do certain things.

My goal, when I speak to such people is to garner respect for the religion itself. Then hopefully, they can then start thinking of how their life would be different if they had the same peace that the Christians have.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
I’m all up for discussion and explaining Christianity to atheists, agnostics and other non-believers, but what I find frustrating is that people I encounter are simply not open to a conversation at a certain level. I am not the type to start these discussions and only engage in them when asked about my faith. Thus I don’t understand why my answers are always met with “It all depends on the person” or “Great that this works for you”. These are not arguments. This is unthinking, immature relativism grounded in nothing. Why do these people bother asking about my faith if they have nothing to say in response? After expressing their relativist position they tend to change the topic. At least on this forum we encounter non-believers who are interested in having a discussion and are prepared to use logic. I have no idea what to do with these 'whateverisms" I encounter in real life.

Any suggestions on how to steer these conversations in a meaningful direction that will allow me to discuss religious belief in a more sophisticated way?

Thank you!
Click to expand...
I recommend a “relatively” (pardon the pun) new book, The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism by Edward Feser. He is a Catholic philosopher.

I think the problem is first of all a philosophical problem, and only secondarily a theological one. If you try to approach it from a theological direction, you may as well be speaking ___ (fill in some foreign language that they do not understand at all). Your words will not mean the same thing to you as to them, because reality itself means something different.

For many modernists, reality begins in their heads where their thoughts, feelings and concepts are. For persons well-formed in the Catholic Faith, reality is more outside of our heads than inside (because there is more that is real outside - there is a whole material universe, a whole spiritual world of angels and departed souls, and there is the infinite mystery of God who is omnipresent.

But for the modernist, a person’s understanding of what is real begins in his mind and has great trouble, logically, ever leaving. (“How do I know for sure what is “really” out there? - All I have are my sense impressions that go to my brain and form concepts - and only my own concepts do I really “know”.”) Thus subjectivism and relativism fit very well in such a mind. The Catholic believes in a real world outside of him (and inside too), that could very well exist had he never been created by God in the first place. Ultimately, God is Real. From His Reality, all else flows and is sustained. But for the modernist, such thinking as that is unintelligible, because he does not grasp the reality of reality.

I hope that I’ve made a little sense. Feser’s book, though containing many more words to deal with, also contains much more and better insights into the philosophical mess that we are living in the midst of. Feser’s analysis of the “mess” of relativism is from his perspective as a Catholic standing on the solid philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, who stood upon and deepened Aristotle to provide for us a philosophy of realism - the only intelligible perspective, really, that is available (IMHO).
 
Fide, that is a great point that it starts philosophically first. Just the idea that an objective reality exists is a tough one for people immersed in our culture. I will check out that book.

A method I’ve heard, in terms of Christian evangelism, is when someone says it isn’t true or it’s bad etc, to take a scripture quote or something from the catechism, something maybe interesting and practical and that they might not know and say this teaching really helps me because…
 
Fide,

thank you for the recommendation of that book. I will definitely read it.

I would love to find a good defence of the concept of objectivity, because that is the real stumbling block for the modernist mind. If we can admit that some things are objectively true, than other things must also be objectively true. And this is somethingt that people can’t handle because it would not allow them to decide what is good and where the boundaries are. It is easier and safer to dismiss objectivity altogether and insist on the subjective interpretation of things.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
Fide,

thank you for the recommendation of that book. I will definitely read it.

I would love to find a good defence of the concept of objectivity, because that is the real stumbling block for the modernist mind. If we can admit that some things are objectively true, than other things must also be objectively true. And this is somethingt that people can’t handle because it would not allow them to decide what is good and where the boundaries are. It is easier and safer to dismiss objectivity altogether and insist on the subjective interpretation of things.
Click to expand...
I think Feser could help you see the logical fallacy at the root of much modern thinking. A crucial error they all seem to make is the denial of the metaphysics of Aristotle - his formal and final causes in particular. When things lose their objective essence and purpose, and instead we can be aware only of our own concepts of “whatever-it-is”, there is little left for us but ourselves, our own imprisoned thoughts.

However, most modern people are completely unaware of the very restricted universe of their thoughts - they think that what they think IS reality. So to “debate” with them is highly problematic.
 
Of course, this all gets complicated by nominalism as well.

I have just ordered Methodical Realism from Ignatius; looks really good!

For me, Chesterton is the real champion of realism for the layperson:
“There is at the back of all our lives an abyss of light, more blinding and unfathomable than any abyss of darkness; and it is the abyss of actuality, of existence, of the fact that things truly are, and that we ourselves are incredibly and sometimes almost incredulously real. It is the fundamental fact of being, as against not being; it is unthinkable, yet we cannot unthink it, though we may sometimes be unthinking about it; unthinking and especially unthanking. For he who has realized this reality knows that it does outweigh, literally to infinity, all lesser regrets or arguments for negation, and that under all our “rumblings there is a subconscious substance of gratitude. That light of the positive is the business of the poets, because they see all things in the light of it more than do other men… . . Creation was the greatest of all Revolutions. It was for that, as the ancient poet said, that the morning stars sang together; and the most modern poets, like the medieval poets, may descend very far from that height of realization and stray and stumble and seem distraught; but we shall know them for the Sons of God, when they are still shouting for joy. This is something much more mystical and absolute than any modern thing that is called optimism; for it is only rarely that we realize, like a vision of the heavens filled with a chorus of giants, the primeval duty of Praise.”–Chaucer (1932)
Click to expand...
 
Birdpreacher,

in case you want to derail my thread please be so kind and don’t. I’m sure there are plenty of other discussions that you can contribute to. I am asking a question about a specific situation: people who reject religion because it doesn’t suit them and who refuse to engage in a conversation beyond ‘whatever works for you’ kind of thing, but still are curious enough to ask what the fuss is about.
 
chipeto said:
Of course, this all gets complicated by nominalism as well.

I have just ordered Methodical Realism from Ignatius; looks really good!

For me, Chesterton is the real champion of realism for the layperson:
Click to expand...
Beautiful quote from Chesterton. Thank you.

I remember vividly when I first heard of this perspective: that something IS. The “miracle of being.” It made a powerful impression on me. I had not realized how imprisoned I was in my own brain - and even then, I was not set free to know for myself this “miracle of being”, that things ARE when they could as well not be. But then it began, for me, a journey to freedom ultimately in Christ. Thank you for “taking me back there” for a moment.
 
fide said:
No, but it does point out the universal hunger in man for Truth.
Click to expand...
This is what I thought of the picture as well. The need to worship is present in all of us but when people reject God they inevitably find false gods to worship. In secular culture that is often success, money, sex, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top