Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Eternity in Their Hearts

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

2 Timothy 4: 3-4

Relativism is the great opiate of our day. It deadens our senses to reality, makes us high on the fairy tale that subjective experience is the only moral compass, and renders our minds useless for intelligent thought. Relativism is the religion of the hour.

Our increasingly postmodern culture rejects the notion of absolute truth in gargantuan proportions. It's no secret. The thing that always boggles my mind about relativistic theory is how little one is required to think in order to embrace the idea. I'm not trying to be harsh or mean, and I'm not trying to say I'm some kind of Einstein. But I do enjoy thinking, and if I'm going to think, I want to go all the way. So let's dissect this idea of relativism, little by little, and peel away its transparent, fragile layers.

Let's start by summarizing the theory of Relativism: There is no such thing as absolute Truth. Everything is relative; therefore, there is no definite right or wrong. Each individual may arrive at his or her own truth, based upon his or her own ideas, affections, and preferences.

I have to admit that the whole idea sounds, at first, very attractive. It sounds fair. It sounds nice and pleasant and sweet. I am tempted to believe this theory... until I really start thinking. And when I really start to think about this idea of relativism, the whole theory is fraught with logical fallacies. (Again, I'm not trying to be harsh or overly critical. I would like to honestly consider this idea, but I want to consider it in an intellectual way.) So here it goes...

To be very blunt, the first fallacy seems so obvious as to almost be laughable. If one is to say, "There is no such thing as absolute truth," one is making a statement of, in fact, truth. It's exactly the same thing as saying, "The truth is that there is no truth." Right away I find that it's impossible to make a logical statement purporting the absence of an Absolute, because, in doing so, I am stating an Absolute.

The next obvious argument against the theory of Relativism is that relativism does not exist in the natural world. All around us every day, we are witnesses to, and subjected to, the natural order of things. (I really believe that this one is so obvious that we take it for granted.) That the earth is revolving around the sun, and that it must continue to do so for life to exist on our planet, is not a relative principle. It's Law. If it is a relativistic principle, I'm not so sure that I want to wake up tomorrow. The fact that placental mammals reproduce offspring by the male's sperm fertilizing the female's egg is not relative. It must happen for reproduction to take place. The natural world is positively brimming with absolutes, things that are set in motion, things that are true. Since we are a part of the natural world, why should we not operate on the same principle?

This leads us to the next inherent fallacy with the theory of Relativism. It is very common to hear the following statements: "As long as it works for you, it must be okay." "If it makes you feel good, then it must be right." "If it's true in your own heart, then it's true, period." Aside from the fact that these statements are inherently illogical, purporting relativism and truth simultaneously, they operate under the assumption that truth is subjective. This means that if I have decided something is right and true, then it is. Period.

The problem with subjective truth is that the principles that govern the natural and moral world are not dependent upon me. I did not decide that the earth should revolve around the sun. I was born into a world that functions in this way, whether I like it or not. Morally speaking, I did not determine that it's probably very wrong for someone to have sex with a person other than his or her spouse. Whether I believe this set of ideas is from God or another source, the fact is that I had nothing to do with the decision. I was born into a world operating under these principles.

Someone may say, "As long as someone is very sincere in his or her belief about what is true, then that's good enough." Again, a statement like this is very attractive. I am honestly tempted to seriously consider Relativism. Sincerity can be, after all, a very noble quality. But a statement like this assumes that sincerity and truth are synonymous. In actuality, they are nothing of the kind. It's impossible to have truth without sincerity. But it's entirely possible to have sincerity devoid of truth.

Consider the example of an individual who believes the following mathematical equation to be true: Two plus two equals five. He is very sincere in his belief. He believes it with all of his heart. His devotion to this belief does no harm to those around him. Does the sincerity of this individual's belief that two plus two equals five make it any more true? Of course not. Truth is never subjective to one's preferences or experience. Two plus two will never be five, even if I want it to be true with all of my heart. I cannot make it so. It is not dependent upon me.

Next, it is noteworthy to point out that all of the great human intellectual pursuits operate under the system of absolutes. Whether we study math, music, science, history, art, or linguistics, we begin our study with an introduction to the basic truths of each field. My history teacher would never teach that the Battle of Hastings occurred in 1036 and was won by the British. It's simply untrue, and therefore everything else I learn about the affects of that war are based on fallacies. (Incidentally, this might occur in the public school system, but that's another topic and another blog. *wink*) Also, I would never enter into a rendition of Beethoven's Ninth without first learning the building blocks, the basic musical notes, that make such a grand piece of music possible. (I could play such a masterpiece without learning the basics if I was a musical prodigy, but even then I am still operating under the laws that govern the music; I just skipped the introduction.) The acquisition of knowledge and understanding is always based on true principles. Therefore, to reject truth is to reject knowledge.

Let's consider next the issue of relativism in regard to morality, which is much more fundamental to our day. It's interesting to note that we are very quick to reject truth in issues of morality as long as it suits our own ends. For example, if we decide that we suddenly want to divorce our spouse because we have found someone who makes us happier, then there is no right or wrong about it. (I'm playing devil's advocate.) But when our spouse, whom we love, decides to run off with someone else for his or her own happiness, we are quick to agree how wrong and unjust such an action can be. We always find a way to justify an action, calling it morally relative, when our own selfish desires can be fed.

A strong argument against moral relativism is quite simply this: the horrific response of nearly everyone to acts of gross, violent evil. When we hear of the young child who was kidnapped, raped, and slowly and brutally murdered, we never say, "You know, it's really not that bad because everything is relative." No! We are aghast. We are disgusted and grieved. Sometimes we weep. We vehemently cry out for justice, and rightly so. Why? Because such an act is not morally relative. If moral relativism is true, if such a violent deed has no basis in right or wrong, then there is absolutely no reason or justification for our horror and demand for justice. We would not even be horrified. Moral relativism not only demands that we not think, it demands we not feel.

Finally, the great questions of humanity presuppose true answers: "Why am I here?" "Where do I come from?" Every human civilization has sought out answers to these questions (which is the source of manmade religion). These universal questions are like a gust of wind upon the flickering flame of Relativism. Such questions snuff out any shadow of substance that Relativism may feign because to ask such a question is to assume a real, unfaltering Truth behind it. "He has put eternity in their hearts..." (Ecclesiastes 3: 11)

Our culture, our world, has itching ears. We want something that sounds good, something that makes us feel good. But we need to think. Hard. When we really begin to think, we see that Relativism is a theory for the dogs. It's not for those with eternity in their hearts.

Today, absolute Truth is accused of being too narrow-minded. I agree with that. Truth is always narrow: Two plus two is four. The earth revolves around the sun. Murder is evil. Truth is narrow. But it's beautiful, too.

When I was a little girl, I dreamed that I was lost in a department store. Where was my mother?! Terrified, I searched frantically for her, finally thinking I had found her. I held confidently onto her hand for minutes, certain I had been rescued from my lostness. But when I looked up, a strange lady looked down at me. "I'm not your mother, sweetie," she said. My mother was far off still. I could see her from where I was, through the meandering path of strangers filling the store. There was one way to reach her, one pathway to her arms of safety. It was a narrow path. But it led to my mother.

And it was beautiful to be in her arms again.

No comments: