Relativism

[mullenpm]

I hope I am in the proper forum for this topic; if not, you have my permission to move.

Help me to understand exactly “what is relativism.” I have heard several homilies on EWTN wherein relativism is beginning to be mentioned.

 

[flyingfish]

plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

Relativism is not a single doctrine but a family of views whose common theme is that some central aspect of experience, thought, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else. For example standards of justification, moral principles or truth are sometimes said to be relative to language, culture, or biological makeup. Although relativistic lines of thought often lead to very implausible conclusions, there is something seductive about them, and they have captivated a wide range of thinkers from a wide range of traditions.

 

[centurionguard]

I would have gone a little more precise by saying that Relativism is the philosophy that denies all absolute moral norms and holds, instead, that all seemingly universal moral norms are merely programmed. There are many types of relativism, such as: psychological (“holding that a person’s ideas about morality are strictly conditioned by family training”); or social, holding that a person’s ideas about morality are completely programmed by education in society, or economic, as did Karl Marx, that a person’s ideas about morality are determined by his status in the economy.

Catholic teaching however; is based in (“reason and faith”), which holds that there are certain actions which are always wrong, regardless of time, class, place or country.
Other attitudes are good, whether part of one’s upbringing or contrary to it.

Even though we are influenced by family, culture and economics, as rational beings we are capable of criticizing such pressures and arriving at a true understanding. That such is the belief of all persons, even relativists, can be shown by watching their behavior. For example, no relativist would respond to a personal injustice such as economic exploitation with the passive view that his or her exploiters were merely victims of cultural conditioning. Instead, the outrage that comes in confrontation with injustice presupposes belief in a real absolute right that should never be violated.

 

[Truth_Seeker17]

In layman’s terms, Relativism is where person A believes one thing, and person B believes another thing. Person A’s belief is true to him, and person B’s belief is true to her.

Absolutism, in contrast, states that either both person A’s and person B’s statement are false, or one of them is true (assuming the two beliefs are contradictory, such as “God exists” and “God doesn’t exist”). Christians generally lean towards believing in Absolutism rather than Relativism.

 

[centurionguard]

In layman’s terms, Relativism is where person A believes one thing, and person B believes another thing. Person A’s belief is true to him, and person B’s belief is true to her.

Absolutism, in contrast, states that either both person A’s and person B’s statement are false, or one of them is true (assuming the two beliefs are contradictory, such as “God exists” and “God doesn’t exist”). Christians generally lean towards believing in Absolutism rather than Relativism.

Hmm; I’ve seen some very good convincing relativist arguments on moral subject matter where they use absolutism to support their presuppositions.

 

[mfj]

“Person A’s belief is true to him, and person B’s belief is true to her.”

That’s the way I see it played out.

It’s the idea that there is no absolute truth. No black No white
All there is, the judgement of morals and the like are dependent on the individual’s thoughts, opinions, etc.

 

[Truth_Seeker17]

Hmm; I’ve seen some very good convincing relativist arguments on moral subject matter where they use absolutism to support their presuppositions.

haha yeah, the whole argument blows up in their face at that point. And when they claim “There are no absolutes,” you should then ask “Are you absolutely sure that there are no absolutes?” If they answer yes, then it is a self-defeating statement because you can’t be absolutely sure that there are no absolutes if there aren’t any absolutes in the first place. If they answer no, then they are disagreeing with the assertion they just made.

This approach is called the ‘Roadrunner tactic’ and is thoroughly explained in the book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norm Geisler, an incredible read that analyzes the evidence pointing towards the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[centurionguard]

haha yeah, the whole argument blows up in their face at that point. And when they claim “There are no absolutes,” you should then ask “Are you absolutely sure that there are no absolutes?” If they answer yes, then it is a self-defeating statement because you can’t be absolutely sure that there are no absolutes if there aren’t any absolutes in the first place. If they answer no, then they are disagreeing with the assertion they just made.

This approach is called the ‘Roadrunner tactic’ and is thoroughly explained in the book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norm Geisler, an incredible read that analyzes the evidence pointing towards the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

**I can see how many Christians and Catholics alike can get wrapped up in the writings of reformed Calvinist evangelist Dr. Norm Geisler. No doubt he makes some good convincing arguments against Atheism. For me however; I prefer Saint Thomas Aquinas and his many writings; Summa Theologica. newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
aquinasonline.com/Topics/existgod.html
aquinasonline.com/Topics/nattheol.html **

 

[mullenpm]

Thank you all for your postings. I don’t really read the loooong posts that are merely excerpts from online sources. I have already read that material before I posted.

I am looking for a down-to-heart explanation from a **Catholic **view point. I did not mean to have the thread turn into a philosophical debate.

Thanks anyway.

 

[Rence]

Thank you all for your postings. I don’t really read the loooong posts that are merely excerpts from online sources. I have already read that material before I posted.

I am looking for a down-to-heart explanation from a **Catholic **view point. I did not mean to have the thread turn into a philosophical debate.

Thanks anyway.

Don’t you think it depends on which Catholic you ask? You’re asking a pretty broad question about Catholic point of view. We’re not a collective brain

If a Catholic is very conservative or very traditional, in my experiences (even on this forum), I’ve been told by these Cathlolics that there is only ONE brand of Truth: Theirs. And that relativism is a sin and heresy and blasphemy, yadda yadda. And that other people who don’t share their faith and morals are simply wrong.

But I don’t believe that’s a “Catholic viewpoint”. That is the viewpoint of some Catholics. Likewise, other Catholics do believe that relativism is a product of different things and that all people’s beliefs and values should be respected as long as they don’t violate other people’s rights.

Of course, the Catholic Church teaches that it’s views are the only right views. Every religion and culture believes that theirs the only right way, and relativity doesn’t apply.

Does that answer your question?

 

[kage_ar]

Don’t you think it depends on which Catholic you ask? You’re asking a pretty broad question about Catholic point of view. We’re not a collective brain

If a Catholic is very conservative or very traditional, in my experiences (even on this forum), I’ve been told by these Cathlolics that there is only ONE brand of Truth: Theirs. And that relativism is a sin and heresy and blasphemy, yadda yadda. And that other people who don’t share their faith and morals are simply wrong.

But I don’t believe that’s a “Catholic viewpoint”. That is the viewpoint of some Catholics. Likewise, other Catholics do believe that relativism is a product of different things and that all people’s beliefs and values should be respected as long as they don’t violate other people’s rights.

Of course, the Catholic Church teaches that it’s views are the only right views. Every religion and culture believes that theirs the only right way, and relativity doesn’t apply.

Does that answer your question?

This post is a great example of the beginnings of relativism

Relativism means there is no objective truth. What is true for one person is not true for another.

Relativism is like personal taste with a dash of philosophy thrown in.

 

[Prime]

Thank you all for your postings. I don’t really read the loooong posts that are merely excerpts from online sources. I have already read that material before I posted.

I am looking for a down-to-heart explanation from a **Catholic **view point. I did not mean to have the thread turn into a philosophical debate.

Thanks anyway.

And I thought relativism is not a philosophical question in itself!
Anyway, as a Catholic, I’m just as incapable of understanding what it would be like to have each one disagreeing when each one is telling the truth!

 

[mfj]

"This post is a great example of the beginnings of relativism "

good catch!

"I’m just as incapable of understanding what it would be like to have each one disagreeing when each one is telling the truth! "

hehe!

 

[sedonaman]

Hmm; I’ve seen some very good convincing relativist arguments on moral subject matter where they use absolutism to support their presuppositions.

Yes, and the most obvious is, “There is no absolute truth.”

 

[sedonaman]

Relativism and polylogism are closely related:

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 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.

[Unquote]

While polylogism is an attempt to support the proposition that all cultures are equal, implying that we cannot judge other societies, relativism attempts to do the same with individuals, i.e., that everyone’s beliefs are equal. Clearly, not all cultures are equal, nor are individuals’ beliefs. To believe they are, of course, requires an attack on truth itself. [Political correctness is another attack on truth. To be politically correct, we are required to parrot certain opinions, which common sense and logic tell us are untrue, because we might otherwise offend a member of a politically favored group who holds a belief we consider erroneous.]

A common statement you hear is, “What is true for you is not necessarily true for me.” This is a cleverly disguised way of saying that man can make up his own rules on what is right and wrong, IOW, there is no truth. The story of Adam and Eve in the garden could be an allegory to explain that God makes the rules, not man, and that Original Sin was not the literal eating of a fruit but really man playing God. This would explain why truth has been under attack and that this attack is nothing new.

“What is true for you is not necessarily true for me” is an argument that is easy to shoot down. Consider that the actor Sean Connery is from Ireland and I am from the US. That he is from Ireland is true about him; however, the statement is true for him, for me, and for the rhetorical man behind the tree. He can’t possibly be from somewhere else for anyone. Clearly, truth is external to the individual.

If truth is indeed relative, it can be relative to only one thing: God.

If you are familiar with EWTN, you might be aware of Fr. Mitch Pacwa’s CD, “Relativism and Her Three Ugly Sisters.” It is a good explanation of the dominant ideas of our “age of chaos”.

 

[mnealon1]

Having read down through the threads on relativism I am toltally confused, which I admit in all humility is not hard for me!!
I completely acknowledge the beliefs of all religions, but am speaking as a Romam Catholic. My understanding of relativism is when one adapts a belief or beliefs to suite and live out ideas which are comfortable for you to accept and live by, which may not be the total and complete teachings of the Church. These ideas become relative to YOU and live out these ideas, thus pushing God aside to pander to your conclusions. You then begin to live in the " I " or " ME" instead of complete union of the teachings of Jesus.
While philosophy is great, you can talk your self in and out of anything until the cap fits your own ideas.
I have heard the most outrageous things said in the name of relativism and the Church and think it is one of the biggest dangers to the Church of our present times.
For me who struggles every day, you either believe completly or you dont, and it can be hard. Relativism for me is a means to distort the truth, for your own ends.

Peace and God Bless

 

[Magnanimity]

**I can see how many Christians and Catholics alike can get wrapped up in the writings of reformed Calvinist evangelist Dr. Norm Geisler. No doubt he makes some good convincing arguments against Atheism. For me however; I prefer Saint Thomas Aquinas and his many writings; Summa Theologica. **

Not that it’s terribly important, but just to clarify, Norman Geisler would better be described as a dispensational, thomistic Evangelical Baptist. That’s quite a mouthful, huh? But, he’s definitely neither reformed nor Calvinist. Even calling him an evangelist would be stretching it… He’s a writer who pretty much specializes in thomistic apologetics. Very worth reading for Catholics or otherwise.

 

[Newbie2]

Thank you all for your postings. I don’t really read the loooong posts that are merely excerpts from online sources. I have already read that material before I posted.

I am looking for a down-to-heart explanation from a **Catholic **view point. I did not mean to have the thread turn into a philosophical debate.

Thanks anyway.

Ah, but you need to understand that an understanding in Philosophy is invaluable in understanding Catholic doctrine and dogma.

If you want the skinny on relativism, Pope JPII has an excellent discussion in one of his encyclicals…name escapes me for the moment…somebody help me out here, is it fides et ratio?

 

[mullenpm]

Thank you mnealon1, may I sit beside you in the pew. I also have been following the responses to my OP and am almost thoroughly confused. I had heard Fr. Mitch make a reference to relativism in a hominly on EWTN; it appeared to be something that I, as a Catholic, should be very aware of. But, I was not aware of it and did not understand his meaning.

Sedonaman has made it more clear and I am beginning to get my head around it. I believe I must purchase Fr. Mitch’s CD.

Thanks.

 

[fix]

Ah, but you need to understand that an understanding in Philosophy is invaluable in understanding Catholic doctrine and dogma.

If you want the skinny on relativism, Pope JPII has an excellent discussion in one of his encyclicals…name escapes me for the moment…somebody help me out here, is it fides et ratio?

Sure right here