Why Relativism is Wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter ESMDHokie77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ESMDHokie77

Guest
Hey CAF,

I need some help in bulking up in being able to refute relativism. In several discussions with a protestant or two, I’ve heard the following:
  • Something could be true for me, but a different possibility may be true for you.
  • If reading the Bible has led different persons to believe different things, that is okay. (Even if these are opposites).
I tried to force the explanation against the 2nd point, but it was like walking into a brick wall. :confused: I need help showing the necessity and reasoning behind universal truth!

If there are any links, reading recommendations, audio files to listen to, etc, please share them with me.

God Bless,
Phil
 
Hi,

Yeah I can totally relate with you. I am in a conversation at the time with a friend as well who I am trying to help.

May I recommend this as a source.

A Refutation of Moral Relativism - By Peter Kreeft - It covers the 2 things that you listed in the OP.

Little One0307
 
Look at it this way. You and your friend have related but slightly different beliefs. You could spend every conversation you have with him talking about whether a particular part of the Bible means this or that. You could talk about such-and-such a cardinal’s interpretation, and he’ll mention such-and-such a pastor’s interpretation, and you will both be absolutely certain you are right and not move from your position. Instead of following this route, your friend is saying “You believe something different to me, and that’s fine. You’re not lying when you say that (for example) the wine becomes blood, and I’m not lying when I say it represents blood. We are each saying what is true for us.”
 
kaid100 said:
Look at it this way. You and your friend have related but slightly different beliefs. You could spend every conversation you have with him talking about whether a particular part of the Bible means this or that. You could talk about such-and-such a cardinal’s interpretation, and he’ll mention such-and-such a pastor’s interpretation, and you will both be absolutely certain you are right and not move from your position. Instead of following this route, your friend is saying “You believe something different to me, and that’s fine. You’re not lying when you say that (for example) the wine becomes blood, and I’m not lying when I say it represents blood. We are each saying what is true for us.”
Click to expand...
But therein represents the problem. The wine can NOT be both the real presence and not the real presence. If an uninformed non-Catholic attends Mass and receives the Eucharist (because everyone else is and it’s OK in my church), then that does not cease to be real presence because the recipient believes to represent blood. It either is or is not.

The doctrine of “dual truths” is dangerous territory. There is some latitude for interpretation of scripture within the Catholic church. But all interpretations must not be contrary to Catholic teaching. So, when reading John 6, we are to interpret it as Jesus proving His real presence in the Eucharist. It is not symbolic!

I’m reminded of a quote from Archbishop Sheen, “A lie is a lie if everyone believes it and a truth is a truth even if nobody believes it.” I’m not saying others are lying - they truly believe what they believe. However, a strong belief doesn’t overrule the truth. And, from what I can conjure, there can only be one truth. If there is an exception to this, please let me know.

Peace and grace.
 
ctkrcia said:
But therein represents the problem. The wine can NOT be both the real presence and not the real presence. If an uninformed non-Catholic attends Mass and receives the Eucharist (because everyone else is and it’s OK in my church), then that does not cease to be real presence because the recipient believes to represent blood. It either is or is not.

The doctrine of “dual truths” is dangerous territory. There is some latitude for interpretation of scripture within the Catholic church. But all interpretations must not be contrary to Catholic teaching. So, when reading John 6, we are to interpret it as Jesus proving His real presence in the Eucharist. It is not symbolic!

I’m reminded of a quote from Archbishop Sheen, “A lie is a lie if everyone believes it and a truth is a truth even if nobody believes it.” I’m not saying others are lying - they truly believe what they believe. However, a strong belief doesn’t overrule the truth. And, from what I can conjure, there can only be one truth. If there is an exception to this, please let me know.

Peace and grace.
Click to expand...
No, of course it can’t be both, but that doesn’t mean either of you are lying. One (or both) of you is mistaken but not lying. But since religious statements can’t normally be tested scientifically (the Catholic Church, for instance, does not dispute that any scientific test on transubstantiated wine will show that it appears to be wine) and simply rely on authority and faith, if the two of you follow different authorities and different faiths there’s no point to arguing it continually and you may as well Live and Let Live.
 
Thanks for the recommendations to read Kreeft. Everytime I’ve looked him up I’ve thoroughly enjoyed listening/reading what he has to say.
 
It’s rare to find someone who thinks the actual truth is relative.

Truth defined: A proposition is true if and only if it accords with reality.

Now someone may say that is not what they understand truth to be. That is ok. Just make sure they understand that is what you understand it to be. If they insist you call it something else then call that concept something else.

A proposition is fred if and only if it accords with reality.

Explain that what they understand “truth” to be defined as (maybe they will say it is what everyone believes is true or something even though reality doesn’t correspond with those beliefs- who knows what they will come up with) eliminates the significance of the word.

That if truth is not based on reality then it really is not important to you anymore. Just like Paul said if Jesus did “really” rise from the dead then our faith is in vain. This having truth based on reality is how we come to understand truth. My young daughters, instead of asking “is that true?” will often ask “in real life?” And no it’s not due to my brainwashing them.

If the person says they have a different reality than you, well then you might charitably explain that is insane.
 
ESMDHokie77 said:
Hey CAF,

I need some help in bulking up in being able to refute relativism. In several discussions with a protestant or two, I’ve heard the following:
  • Something could be true for me, but a different possibility may be true for you.
  • If reading the Bible has led different persons to believe different things, that is okay. (Even if these are opposites).
I tried to force the explanation against the 2nd point, but it was like walking into a brick wall. :confused: I need help showing the necessity and reasoning behind universal truth!
Click to expand...
I would suggest you not try to force an explanation. The truth has its own force that you have let be felt. A good way to do this is by asking questions. So I would just say: “Why is it okay (for us to believe opposite things)?” (And you can ask yourself: “Why is it not okay…?”)

Of course, some people will refuse to take questions seriously, simply because they love their beliefs, regardless of whether they’re true. But there’s not much you can do to force someone like that to change - prayer and kindness might help, but not the direct truth.
 
Have you tried practical experiments?

Take a straight stick and insert it in the water straight up. Invite your friend to look at it. Ask him if it is a straight stick or a crooked stick. He will say crooked because it seems bent (the stick below water will seem to be at an angle from the stick above water).

Tell him No, it is straight. But it seems crooked, he will say. How can it be both crooked and straight at the same time? you ask him.

Then take the stick out of the water and show it to him as straight. He will stop saying it is crooked. He will admit that he was wrong and you were right.

Opposite statements cannot both be true, though from different perspectives they may seem to be true.

Again, in the State of California you can have an abortion (kill an unborn child) without it being called a crime. But if you kill an unborn child in the act of killing the mother, you can be indicted for a double homicide. This is an insane provision of the law. An unborn child is killed in either case. How can it both be a crime and not a crime?
 
If everything is relative the statement that everything is relative is relative! Relative to what? Itself? Then it is an absolute truth! 👍
 
Suggest to your Protestant friends that they take a course in logic. Relativism breaks the law of non-contradiction and is therefore a false teaching. 👍

Three basic laws of logic:


  1. *]The law of identity says that A is A, that if something exist it has a nature, a single nature. It is what it is.
    *]The law of non-contradiction says that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense. Truth is not self-contradictory.
    *]The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false.
 
The orthodox Christian concept of God is an absolutist concept. God is all light and in him there is no darkness. Ask these moral relativisim people what is their concept of God, and they’ll most likely come up with a New Age definition. They’ll most likely say things like all living beings are part and parcel of the ‘supreme being’ or that the entire material universe is a projection/manifestation of divine consciousness. Everyone and everything is connected, and so on. You can’t argue with these people because its almost like they live on a different planet and you’ll only end up flustering yourself. so its best to let them be and hope that the gospel of your life (how you live your own life) succeeds where eloquence and appeal to logic fails.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top