The real face of relativism

[Elioenai26]

The mind of a man is that organ by which he assimilates and filters data which is input by his five senses and stored in his heart. This can be likened unto a water treatment facility in which various sources of water, some clean, and some very putrid and rank must enter into for the purposes of filtration, purification, and the elimination of all that is toxic so that pure potable water is stored in various holding silos for distribution to our taps and fountains for drinking.

The enlightened relativist, as he no doubt sees himself, boasts that he is "open minded" and accepts all religions and philosophies and worldviews as being simply many paths to the same truth. He harbors this attitude with great satisfaction and boasts that he is the model of "tolerance". What he fails to realize, and this to his own hurt, is that he is no different than a vile sewer which receives all manner of filth from its many different sources. Sources such as untreated rain water, sewage from septic tanks and toilets, and a whole slew of unimaginable filth. Like a sewer, he receives everything that comes his way, never bothering to test to see whether those things he hears and sees are true and therefore worthy of keeping in his heart. He never bothers to "filter" those sundry ideas he accepts as all being "pure".

Such a one has convinced himself there are no absolutes and that everything is relative. When someone does make a claim regarding truth, he quickly dismisses the claimant as being "intolerant", "bigoted", and "narrow minded". What he fails to realize is that he himself is a hypocrite. On one hand he says that all is relative and to each his own, and on the other, he excludes as intolerant, anyone who disagrees with his view! He says in so many words, that if you do not think as I do, you are wrong, and yet says that it is wrong to be exclusivistic! The duplicity here staggers the mind, and what is even more incredible is the amount of intelligent men and women who actually hold this position, all the while remaining ignorant to its obviously contradictory and hypocritical nature.

The so called "New Age Spirituality" movement championed by such well known figures as Oprah Winfrey and Deepak Chopra is replete with just such inconsistencies. It is a wonder indeed that their illogical teachings and contradictory views are so widely accepted as "truth" as they are.

It seems that the great need in our institutions of learning today is not that our children be taught that they are little more than advanced apes due to a time plus matter plus chance blind process of natural selection, but rather very simply, how to think logically and soundly!

It has been said that one of the chief aims of philosophy is to answer the question: "What is truth?" How can we endeavor to even set out on this journey with any confidence of reaching our destination if all we are taught is that "truth" really does not exist!

Relativism is simply not tenable nor livable. It is not practical and certainly not true. Its appeal must be in its "whatever feels good, then do it" mantra. Lust has a remarkable way of convincing us that pleasure supersedes truth in value.

If we desire true illumination we would do well to remember the Lord's exhortation to above all else, watch over our heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life. Proverbs 4:23.

 

[Davian]

Telling relativists what and how they think now?

When all else fails, preach.

 

[Elioenai26]

Telling relativists what and how they think now?

When all else fails, preach.

I am hoping that no one here could say that this applies to them. I really am hoping that what I have written is not applicable to anyone here.

In fact, you can take this Davian and use it in your own arguments against relativism if you ever find yourself in need of a good argument against it.

This was not written to make the relativist "squirm in his seat" so to speak, but primarily for those who see relativism for what it is and may need a clear, concise refutation of it in their defense of Christianity from its relativistic antagonists.

So you see Davian, your suspicions are unfounded my dear sir.

 

[quatona]

I am hoping that no one here could say that this applies to them. I really am hoping that what I have written is not applicable to anyone here.

So what´s the point in arguing against non-existent views instead of addressing the views of the people you are talking to?

In fact, you can take this Davian and use it in your own arguments against relativism if you ever find yourself in need of a good argument against it.

Well, if it addresses a "relativism" that the person I am talking to doesn´t even subscribe to I am afraid they will be unimpressed.

 

[Elioenai26]

So what´s the point in arguing against non-existent views instead of addressing the views of the people you are talking to?

The point is that the view is anything but non-existent. Relativism and all of its derivatives is becoming increasingly prevalent, especially in the west.

Secondly, there are some relativists who have been active in these forums. I know this because I have engaged them in discussion. So this makes the topic more than applicable, although I say this with sadness. If you will notice, I used the word "hope" several times in my reply to Davian. I "hoped" that during my several months of absence from these forums that those who I had once engaged in discussion who were relativistic in their thinking, would have had time to see the error in their thinking and logic and would have amended their position from one that is contradictory and internally inconsistent to one that is both coherent and consistent.

Well, if it addresses a "relativism" that the person I am talking to doesn´t even subscribe to I am afraid they will be unimpressed.

Why would you present a refutation of relativism to a non-relativist? Where have I said you or anyone else should? Your replies are patently conspicuous examples of the fact that you have not carefully read what I have written. If you had, you would not have written responses that are non-applicable to my post.

 

[Beechwell]

The mind of a man is that organ by which he assimilates and filters data which is input by his five senses and stored in his heart. This can be likened unto a water treatment facility in which various sources of water, some clean, and some very putrid and rank must enter into for the purposes of filtration, purification, and the elimination of all that is toxic so that pure potable water is stored in various holding silos for distribution to our taps and fountains for drinking.

The enlightened relativist, as he no doubt sees himself, boasts that he is "open minded" and accepts all religions and philosophies and worldviews as being simply many paths to the same truth. He harbors this attitude with great satisfaction and boasts that he is the model of "tolerance". What he fails to realize, and this to his own hurt, is that he is no different than a vile sewer which receives all manner of filth from its many different sources. Sources such as untreated rain water, sewage from septic tanks and toilets, and a whole slew of unimaginable filth. Like a sewer, he receives everything that comes his way, never bothering to test to see whether those things he hears and sees are true and therefore worthy of keeping in his heart. He never bothers to "filter" those sundry ideas he accepts as all being "pure".

Too bad that many who think their own exclusive water to be clean and pure fail to see that they are actually harboring muddy filth in their system. To them, some new cleaner water may actually do a world of good.

Such a one has convinced himself there are no absolutes and that everything is relative. When someone does make a claim regarding truth, he quickly dismisses the claimant as being "intolerant", "bigoted", and "narrow minded". What he fails to realize is that he himself is a hypocrite. On one hand he says that all is relative and to each his own, and on the other, he excludes as intolerant, anyone who disagrees with his view! He says in so many words, that if you do not think as I do, you are wrong, and yet says that it is wrong to be exclusivistic! The duplicity here staggers the mind, and what is even more incredible is the amount of intelligent men and women who actually hold this position, all the while remaining ignorant to its obviously contradictory and hypocritical nature.

You are right not to see every opinion as equally valid. However one needs to accept that other people's views are as valid to them as yours are to you. Therefore a society does well to accept the views of all their members as long as they are of no direct threat to other members of the society or the society as a whole.

It has been said that one of the chief aims of philosophy is to answer the question: "What is truth?"

Where did you hear that? I have never heard of such an aim in philosophy. It also seems extremely vague. What exactly do you mean by it.
Usually people quote the four Kantian questions:
1. What can I know?
2. What should I do?
3. What can I hope for?
4. What is a human being?

 

[quatona]

The point is that the view is anything but non-existent.

The view that you described in the OP?
Ok, so I wish you all the best of luck to find yourself someone who holds it and whom you can discuss it with.

However, the "real face" of relativism is that which people who consider themselves relativists actually believe.

 

[Elioenai26]

Too bad that many who think their own exclusive water to be clean and pure fail to see that they are actually harboring muddy filth in their system. To them, some new cleaner water may actually do a world of good.

That is very true. I am glad we agree on this.

You are right not to see every opinion as equally valid. However one needs to accept that other people's views are as valid to them as yours are to you.

On this we also agree. But one thing must be noted here:

Everyone's views are valid in their own eyes, on this we agree. However, that does not mean that everyone's views are true. I will supply you with a simple illustration to show you why.

Before the advances in human knowledge made it possible for us to know the true nature of the world on which we live and move, many intelligent men and women held to a view that the earth was flat. In fact, this was the popular view held for many centuries. These people were educated for their time, had access to the latest information and technology and sincerely felt that their view that the earth was flat was true.

Some, however, maintained that it was not flat, that it was more round in shape.

So here we have two views, which are completely the opposite of each other. Each view is valid in the eyes and minds of the ones who hold the view.

But both cannot be "TRUE". This is the entire point I am making. Yes I will agree with you Beechwell, when you maintain that each person's view is right in their own eyes, but that does not meant that it is necessarily true.

The ones who thought the earth was flat were wrong. They were as wrong as they could be. They had completely missed it! They were sincere no doubt, but sincerely "WRONG."

Sincerity can never be the measure for truth.

Islamic Jihadists sincerely believe they are doing what is right when they blow people up!

The Nazis sincerely believed they had Germany's best interest at heart when they were committing genocide.

Therefore a society does well to accept the views of all their members as long as they are of no direct threat to other members of the society or the society as a whole.

On this we also agree. I respect the Muslim who lives next door to me, I respect the Hindu, or the atheist that lives down the street. I respect them and honor them and love them because they are humans, just like I am. I respect their views and I also reserve the right to respectfully disagree with them.

Where did you hear that? I have never heard of such an aim in philosophy. It also seems extremely vague. What exactly do you mean by it.
Usually people quote the four Kantian questions:
1. What can I know?
2. What should I do?
3. What can I hope for?
4. What is a human being?

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Truth

First published Tue Jun 13, 2006
Truth is one of the central subjects in philosophy. It is also one of the largest. Truth has been a topic of discussion in its own right for thousands of years. Moreover, a huge variety of issues in philosophy relate to truth, either by relying on theses about truth, or implying theses about truth.

Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[quatona]

Before the advances in human knowledge made it possible for us to know the true nature of the world on which we live and move, many intelligent men and women held to a view that the earth was flat. In fact, this was the popular view held for many centuries. These people were educated for their time, had access to the latest information and technology and sincerely felt that their view that the earth was flat was true.

Some, however, maintained that it was not flat, that it was more round in shape.

So here we have two views, which are completely the opposite of each other. Each view is valid in the eyes and minds of the ones who hold the view.

So is the topic actually relativism in regards to physical facts? Ok, then. (I am pretty sure, though, that you will have a hard time finding yourself a relativist in these questions to discuss it with).

But both cannot be "TRUE". This is the entire point I am making. Yes I will agree with you Beechwell, when you maintain that each person's view is right in their own eyes, but that does not meant that it is necessarily true.

The ones who thought the earth was flat were wrong. They were as wrong as they could be. They had completely missed it! They were sincere no doubt, but sincerely "WRONG."

And that´s why the best way to refute a relativistic stance is to prove a certain opinion to be correct. That´s all you need to do, and the case will be closed. Until then, the jury is still out, and a "relativistic" attitude is doing justice to this uncertainty.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is very true. I am glad we agree on this.




On this we also agree. But one thing must be noted here:

Everyone's views are valid in their own eyes, on this we agree. However, that does not mean that everyone's views are true. I will supply you with a simple illustration to show you why.

Before the advances in human knowledge made it possible for us to know the true nature of the world on which we live and move, many intelligent men and women held to a view that the earth was flat. In fact, this was the popular view held for many centuries. These people were educated for their time, had access to the latest information and technology and sincerely felt that their view that the earth was flat was true.

So here we have two views, which are completely the opposite of each other. Each view is valid in the eyes and minds of the ones who hold the view.

But both cannot be "TRUE". This is the entire point I am making. Yes I will agree with you Beechwell, when you maintain that each person's view is right in their own eyes, but that does not meant that it is necessarily true.

The ones who thought the earth was flat were wrong. They were as wrong as they could be. They had completely missed it! They were sincere no doubt, but sincerely "WRONG."

Which educated men and women believed that the Earth was flat, at what point in time, and how prevalent was this belief?

 

[Elioenai26]

So is the topic actually relativism in regards to physical facts? Ok, then. (I am pretty sure, though, that you will have a hard time finding yourself a relativist in these questions to discuss it with).

Relativists make claims and assertions regarding numerous subjects, topics, and a whole gambit of issues. Most of which are non-physical in nature. Just one example of this is their position on morality. We know this by its proper term "moral relativism". Morality is not a matter of physcial quantities, but rather the idea of what one should or ought to do in a given situation. It is concerned with ideas such as vice and virtue and the whole topic is immaterial in nature.

I used an elementary example of the shape of the earth in my above defense to support my case.

It seems to me that you want to draw a line of demarcation between the physical and non-physical and insinuate that relatvism is not sustainable in the physical, but is sustainable in the immaterial. You seem to be implying that there is some justification for relativism when it comes to matters of spirituality and the immaterial. To do so is to demonstrate an underlying and unsubstantiated bias against the non-physical.

I hope that this is not what you are intentionally doing, for if so, it is indicative of a bias against anything that is not physical. This is materialism, and I am sure you are aware of the unsustainability of such a mindset.

And that´s why the best way to refute a relativistic stance is to prove a certain opinion to be correct. That´s all you need to do, and the case will be closed. Until then, the jury is still out, and a "relativistic" attitude is doing justice to this uncertainty.

You use the word "opinion". Opinion carries with it the connotation of subjectivity. If one's "opinion" is proved to be correspondent with truth, then it is no longer a mere "opinion" indistinguishable from a whole slew of others, but it is "truth". It is not "just" my opinion that the earth is round. It is a fact. In fin, an opinion, or judgment, or assertion, once proven correct, is no longer merely an opinion but a fact which must be taken as true. When one is confronted with truth, to dismiss it as "irrelevant" or "not applicable to me" or "thats true for you, not for me" is to do so despite of and in the face of truth. This is to exchange the truth for a lie of one's own fancy.

You say: "that's all you need to do, and the case will be closed.."

This could not be further from the truth. For there are many, whose accounts I have been privileged to read, demonstrate just the opposite. Many have been presented with "truth" and have walked away all the while clinging tightly to their own views which they know to be false. This they do because they are not willing to part with their long cherished opinions, views, and desires. Of these the saying of George Mcdonald rings true:

"To give truth to him who loves it not is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation.”

George MacDonald, Minister, poet, and novelist (1824 - 1905)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Relativists make claims and assertions regarding numerous subjects, topics, and a whole gambit of issues. Most of which are non-physical in nature. Just one example of this is their position on morality. We know this by its proper term "moral relativism". Morality is not a matter of physcial quantities, but rather the idea of what one should or ought to do in a given situation. It is concerned with ideas such as vice and virtue and the whole topic is immaterial in nature.

I used an elementary example of the shape of the earth in my above defense to support my case.

Your elementary example was not very exemplary.

Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ErminlindaRika]

1 of the best posts I've read all day. Thanks for the dose of wisdom!

Real truth never changes nor is dependent on circumstances. If truth depended upon our own limited understanding, then how could we ever understand what truth really is? We don’t know everything that there is to know. Tomorrow we might learn something that we didn’t know today. Would that change our perception of something that we had already decided to be the truth? The most common view today, even among Christians, is that truth is relative. This has implications for the way people decide to live their lives. It’s called moral relativism. Much of this can be attributed to the issue of origins What you believe about where you came from will ultimately determine how you behave. It will also form your view about what you think happens to you when you die. It has eternal consequences.

 

[Paradoxum]

The mind of a man is that organ by which he assimilates and filters data which is input by his five senses and stored in his heart. This can be likened unto a water treatment facility in which various sources of water, some clean, and some very putrid and rank must enter into for the purposes of filtration, purification, and the elimination of all that is toxic so that pure potable water is stored in various holding silos for distribution to our taps and fountains for drinking.

The enlightened relativist, as he no doubt sees himself, boasts that he is "open minded" and accepts all religions and philosophies and worldviews as being simply many paths to the same truth. He harbors this attitude with great satisfaction and boasts that he is the model of "tolerance". What he fails to realize, and this to his own hurt, is that he is no different than a vile sewer which receives all manner of filth from its many different sources. Sources such as untreated rain water, sewage from septic tanks and toilets, and a whole slew of unimaginable filth. Like a sewer, he receives everything that comes his way, never bothering to test to see whether those things he hears and sees are true and therefore worthy of keeping in his heart. He never bothers to "filter" those sundry ideas he accepts as all being "pure".

I disagree with relativism, but I think the views that most like vile sewage are those closer to Hitler, oppressors, tyrants, and murderers.

Such a one has convinced himself there are no absolutes and that everything is relative. When someone does make a claim regarding truth, he quickly dismisses the claimant as being "intolerant", "bigoted", and "narrow minded". What he fails to realize is that he himself is a hypocrite. On one hand he says that all is relative and to each his own, and on the other, he excludes as intolerant, anyone who disagrees with his view! He says in so many words, that if you do not think as I do, you are wrong, and yet says that it is wrong to be exclusivistic! The duplicity here staggers the mind, and what is even more incredible is the amount of intelligent men and women who actually hold this position, all the while remaining ignorant to its obviously contradictory and hypocritical nature.

I don't think relativism is hypocritical. If relativism were true then it would have to be able to be expressed.

The so called "New Age Spirituality" movement championed by such well known figures as Oprah Winfrey and Deepak Chopra is replete with just such inconsistencies. It is a wonder indeed that their illogical teachings and contradictory views are so widely accepted as "truth" as they are.

That's probably true.

It seems that the great need in our institutions of learning today is not that our children be taught that they are little more than advanced apes due to a time plus matter plus chance blind process of natural selection, but rather very simply, how to think logically and soundly!

Well evolution should be taught, but I TOTALLY agree with more focus on critical thinking an philosophy.

It has been said that one of the chief aims of philosophy is to answer the question: "What is truth?" How can we endeavor to even set out on this journey with any confidence of reaching our destination if all we are taught is that "truth" really does not exist!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Which educated men and women believed that the Earth was flat, at what point in time, and how prevalent was this belief?

Every educated person in the Old Testament.

 

[Davian]

I am hoping that no one here could say that this applies to them. I really am hoping that what I have written is not applicable to anyone here.

As as straw man rant, I would doubt that many would identify with it.

In fact, you can take this Davian and use it in your own arguments against relativism if you ever find yourself in need of a good argument against it.

Not if I would like to be taken seriously.

This was not written to make the relativist "squirm in his seat" so to speak,

No, that target was missed by a wide margin.

but primarily for those who see relativism for what it is

Which is you, of course.

and may need a clear, concise refutation of it in their defense of Christianity from its relativistic antagonists.

Clear? In light of your inability to demonstrate that there things like moral absolutes, you shoot yourself in the foot with your own thread.

Concise? Let's mix in some new age spirituality and a dig against evolution.

Refutation? You say relativism "certainly not true", when it isn't a truth statement.

Are you sure that Christianity wants or needs your kind of "defence"?

So you see Davian, your suspicions are unfounded my dear sir.

My suspicion is that you are here to preach, not to learn. Your OP confirms that.

What of my other posts that you have yet to respond to? Are those threads abandoned, and swept under your rug? I'll guess that if you had something of substance to contribute, that you would have done so already.

 

[Elioenai26]

Which educated men and women believed that the Earth was flat, at what point in time, and how prevalent was this belief?

Classical World

Poets

Homer
Hesiod
Stasinus of Cyprus
Mimnermus
Aristophanes
Apollonius Rhodius
Quintus Smyrnaeus

Pre-Socratic philosophers

Thales (c. 550 BC)
Leucippus (c. 440 BC)
Democritus (c. 460–370 BC)
Anaximander (c. 550 BC)
Anaximenes of Miletus
Xenophanes of Colophon (c. 500 BC)
Anaxagoras (c. 450 BC)
Archelaus

Historians

Hecataeus of Miletus
Herodotus
*Courtesy of Wikipedia*



I could go on and on but you get the picture....

 

[Elioenai26]

Your elementary example was not very exemplary.

It does not need to be. It just needs to demonstrate why relativism is so easily recognizable as untenable, as you no doubt would agree that it is, no?

Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Wikipedia all the Myth of the Flat Earth entails was that it was the misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief...

So Archaeopteryx, your use of the link above in no way diminishes or discredits or refutes what I have been saying all along. No where have I said that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed that the earth was flat and that Columbus's voyages refuted that notion, although I am sure some were loathe to relinquish long held tradtion, the point remains the same. Many educated men before and even after Columbus held that the earth was flat.

They were wrong.

 

[quatona]

Relativists make claims and assertions regarding numerous subjects, topics, and a whole gambit of issues. Most of which are non-physical in nature. Just one example of this is their position on morality. We know this by its proper term "moral relativism". Morality is not a matter of physcial quantities, but rather the idea of what one should or ought to do in a given situation. It is concerned with ideas such as vice and virtue and the whole topic is immaterial in nature.

I used an elementary example of the shape of the earth in my above defense to support my case.

If you want to make a case concerning morality you better choose a case from that field.

It seems to me that you want to draw a line of demarcation between the physical and non-physical and insinuate that relatvism is not sustainable in the physical, but is sustainable in the immaterial.

No, you just misunderstood me. The line is between that which has been proven/demonstrated and that which hasn´t.
It´s just that all cases of proof happen to have taken place in the physical.

You seem to be implying that there is some justification for relativism when it comes to matters of spirituality and the immaterial. To do so is to demonstrate an underlying and unsubstantiated bias against the non-physical.

No, it´s a well founded bias against truth claims that aren´t proven.

I hope that this is not what you are intentionally doing, for if so, it is indicative of a bias against anything that is not physical. This is materialism, and I am sure you are aware of the unsustainability of such a mindset.

Yes, I am, and that´s why the above paragraphs in your post wasted both of our time.

You use the word "opinion". Opinion carries with it the connotation of subjectivity. If one's "opinion" is proved to be correspondent with truth, then it is no longer a mere "opinion" indistinguishable from a whole slew of others, but it is "truth". It is not "just" my opinion that the earth is round. It is a fact. In fin, an opinion, or judgment, or assertion, once proven correct, is no longer merely an opinion but a fact which must be taken as true.

Exactly my point.

When one is confronted with truth, to dismiss it as "irrelevant" or "not applicable to me" or "thats true for you, not for me" is to do so despite of and in the face of truth. This is to exchange the truth for a lie of one's own fancy.

Yes, that´s why I said: The best way to do away with a relativistic attitude in a certain question is to present proof.

This could not be further from the truth. For there are many, whose accounts I have been privileged to read, demonstrate just the opposite.

Give of "moral truths" that have been proven (in a similar way as the shape of the earth has been proven, so that I have an idea what you are talking about, and so that I can see the relevance of your example.
Thanks.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Classical World

Poets

Homer
Hesiod
Stasinus of Cyprus
Mimnermus
Aristophanes
Apollonius Rhodius
Quintus Smyrnaeus

Pre-Socratic philosophers

Thales (c. 550 BC)
Leucippus (c. 440 BC)
Democritus (c. 460–370 BC)
Anaximander (c. 550 BC)
Anaximenes of Miletus
Xenophanes of Colophon (c. 500 BC)
Anaxagoras (c. 450 BC)
Archelaus

Historians

Hecataeus of Miletus
Herodotus
*Courtesy of Wikipedia*



I could go on and on but you get the picture....

You should go on... because you haven't answered the question of how prevalent this belief was.

It does not need to be. It just needs to demonstrate why relativism is so easily recognizable as untenable, as you no doubt would agree that it is, no?

What it more aptly demonstrates is that you need a better example.

According to Wikipedia all the Myth of the Flat Earth entails was that it was the misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief...

So Archaeopteryx, your use of the link above in no way diminishes or discredits or refutes what I have been saying all along.

They were wrong.

You claimed that "many intelligent men and women held to a view that the earth was flat. In fact, this was the popular view held for many centuries." What makes you believe that this was a popular and widespread belief for centuries? Which centuries would those be?

No where have I said that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed that the earth was flat and that Columbus's voyages refuted that notion, although I am sure some were loathe to relinquish long held tradtion,

Which long-held tradition were they loathe to relinquish?

Many educated men before and even after Columbus held that the earth was flat.

Many? How many? According to Stephen Jay Gould, "Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology".

You seem to be appealing to some prevailing false belief that was never (or scarcely ever), well, prevailing.