Hello Everyone,
It has been a long time since I have given you a true post. Much apologies for this lack of writing. However, this post is to be about an idea that I was just thinking about tonight during a discussion of G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy”. In his typical genius, Chesterton exposes the futility of the modern notion of relativism and agnosticism. Then, a paradox hit me.
First, a bit of background explanation is necessary to show this point. It has become quite common hear such statements as “Who are we to judge which truth is the actual truth”, or “We really can’t know which truth is really true”. These sort of statements are commonly considered to be extremely humble. In contrast, it also common to hear another claim a bit like, “How much more arrogant can a person be when he believes that he has the only truth”.
It is this belief that I wish to refute: that it is arrogant to believe in absolute truth, and humble to believe that we can’t know what truth is. In fact, I intend to show the exact opposite, that is of the upmost arrogance to deny the existence of absolutes or to think that we can’t know what Truth actually is, since there seems to be so many. Now, this may seem to be a magnificent claim that couldn’t possibly have any logical support, but we must view the underlying premises behind these beliefs to see their validity or lack thereof.
What is a person really saying when they invoke the infamous claim that since there are so many “truths”, we can’t ever know what the real truth is, if there is even a Truth at all? The premise that this person believes, intentionally or not, is that humanity is the measure of all things, all truth. As the old saying goes, “If we can’t do it, no one can”. It assumes that there is no thing that cannot be grasped by people. Can you see the arrogance? These people are basically saying that if humanity can’t come into agreement on an issue, the issue either can’t be known at all, or doesn’t even exist at all. To illustrate it further, can you imagine a group of people that announced that since they did not understand gravity, gravity either couldn’t be understood or didn’t exist? As if this wasn’t absurd enough, imagine more that this group then began to condemn scientists who teach the proven characteristics of gravity, of being arrogant for believing in one explanation of gravity. These people would probably be first in line for a mental hospital as the ultimate narcissists. Yet, this is an extreme form of the rhetoric we hear from the o-so-tolerant relativists. There is not an ounce of consideration to the finiteness of man in this belief; it actually assumes and relies the infinity of man. Truth is one thing humanity cannot seem to come into agreement on, therefore it must not exist or cannot be understood. This, my good friends, is nothing short of an immensely disproportionate view of self.
Now that this has been explained, an explanation of the humility of absolutes is needed. It is rather simple, since it is the exact opposite of what was just shown. Where relativism assumes the infinity of man, the belief in absolute truth assumes the finity of man. For absolute truth to exist, it must be founded on something outside of humanity and bigger than humanity. The relativist says that the plethora of “truths” prove the non-existence of truth. The absolutist says that it is irrelevant that many truths exist, because the Truth isn’t a product of humanity, it instead exists completely separate from man. The absolutist also admits that just because people can’t seem to understand something, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist or can’t be understood. Why? Because the absolutist asserts his own limits and is content with these limits. The relativist, in his supposed freedom, has bound himself to himself. He is trapped inside his own finiteness while believing in his infiniteness.
March 27, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Perceptive and erudite, as usual. It seems to me, though, that relativism is even more arrogant than the old man-is-the-measure-of-all-things line. Relativism goes beyond that and says, “post-Enlightenment Western man is the measure of all things”. This leaves no room for the possible validity of Eastern thought, African belief, Arab teachings, etc. In short, relativism demands that we accept the judgment of one culture in one period of time, to the detriment of virtually all other cultures and times.
The last sentence of your post encapsulates presuppositional thought very well. If I am finite, and I am all there is, how can any judgment be made on anything?
April 3, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I enjoyed your thoughts, Caleb. While I fully agree with your overall stance (relativism = not humble), I have to add that a lot of times nonbelievers are turned off by Christian’s attitudes in proclaiming the truth just as much as the actual content being proclaimed. And this does not need to be (and should not be) the case. I know that you already know this, but I thought it was worth pointing out.
I can’t remember who said it first, but there’s a saying along the lines of, “I always think I’m right, but I don’t think I’m always right.” I think that if more Christians expressed this attitude, the world would be more likely to stop and listen to what we have to say.
(Disclaimer: I hope you know that I wasn’t accusing you of not expressing this attitude… just adding another angle to what you already said.)
April 3, 2007 at 5:08 pm
P.S. I’m not sure why it didn’t automatically link me, but my new blog is at: stewartclem.wordpress.com. Peace.
April 4, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Yes, you are indeed correct. It’s from the Latin Vulgate text and is sometimes just translated as “Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.”
April 5, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I really like your artistic new layout, and the old new layout you had before this one. The chairs are kind of creepy, though.
April 7, 2007 at 4:06 pm
You summed up the crux of the matter with your last statement: “reading is, in fact, a visual discipline.” Other visual media are simply visual inputs, but reading takes discipline. That’s why we’re illiterate.