"All religions, cultures, and lifestyles are equally valid."
If you've ever had a discussion on a moral issue or religion, chances are you've heard that phrase, or any one of its close cousins. The popular sentiment these days is that in the areas of morality, religion, and sometimes politics, everything is relative; there is no one point of view--or truth--that's true for everyone. There is no universal Truth (with a capital "T"). Rather, each culture or individual has its own "truth" (small "t"), and all religions, cultures, and morals are equally valid.
The popular sentiment continues: one shouldn't say other religions or morals are in error, just as it would be odd for me to say your choice of broccoli over beans is wrong. Sure, "my truth" can help me live a better life, but I shouldn't push it on others. I should be tolerant of others' beliefs.
Like I've already said, this is a very common way to think. Maybe you yourself believe this!
What should we think about this?
First, even if someone says he believes this, his whole life contradicts it. He might wax eloquent about how morality is relative, but the next moment he'll complain about someone cutting in line in front of him. If you listen carefully, you'll find even the most ardent relativist make strident moral judgments every day as if they apply to more people than just him.
Let's say you are at work, and you witness two co-workers arguing. The first, a white male, calls a black female co-worker some pretty hefty racial slurs, as well as some very explicit words for various female genitalia. The anger in his voice shows his intent. The female looks very hurt. Has he done anything wrong? Not wrong "for you," but just wrong. Does it change things if he is from another culture or country?
The answer, of course, is yes on the first question, and no on the second. Racism and misogyny are wrong, no matter who you are or where you are from. Period.
Moreover, the notion expressed is contradictory. It commits logical suicide. It's like saying, "I'm a vegetarian, pass the meat." Really, the person is saying that it's wrong to critique others' views, but merely by uttering that, she critiques others. Out of one side of her mouth, she says that there are no truths that applies to others, but out of the other side of her mouth she gives a truth that is supposed to apply to others: that it's wrong to critique others and that one should be tolerant.
This isn't something she thinks just applies to her; she thinks you should follow that rule as well. Here's how you can tease this out in a conversation (that I again borrow from Koukl):
"People have different beliefs, so you should be tolerant of them!"
"Do you believe that?"
"Yup."
"Then that's true for you, but why are you pushing it on me?"
You see? She says I shouldn't judge, but that very sentence is a judgment itself. Why else would the word "should" pop up?
Another example:
"There is no objective truth."
"Is that 'Truth' with a 'big' T, or 'little t'?"
She is in quite a pickle. If she answers no, then you can ignore her--it's just her "belief." But if she answers yes, then she her view commits suicide. She can't escape it; some things are really true, others really false. You know what? It's allright to point that out and say some are right and others are wrong, period. You can't get around it.
If you've ever had a discussion on a moral issue or religion, chances are you've heard that phrase, or any one of its close cousins. The popular sentiment these days is that in the areas of morality, religion, and sometimes politics, everything is relative; there is no one point of view--or truth--that's true for everyone. There is no universal Truth (with a capital "T"). Rather, each culture or individual has its own "truth" (small "t"), and all religions, cultures, and morals are equally valid.
The popular sentiment continues: one shouldn't say other religions or morals are in error, just as it would be odd for me to say your choice of broccoli over beans is wrong. Sure, "my truth" can help me live a better life, but I shouldn't push it on others. I should be tolerant of others' beliefs.
Like I've already said, this is a very common way to think. Maybe you yourself believe this!
What should we think about this?
First, even if someone says he believes this, his whole life contradicts it. He might wax eloquent about how morality is relative, but the next moment he'll complain about someone cutting in line in front of him. If you listen carefully, you'll find even the most ardent relativist make strident moral judgments every day as if they apply to more people than just him.
Let's say you are at work, and you witness two co-workers arguing. The first, a white male, calls a black female co-worker some pretty hefty racial slurs, as well as some very explicit words for various female genitalia. The anger in his voice shows his intent. The female looks very hurt. Has he done anything wrong? Not wrong "for you," but just wrong. Does it change things if he is from another culture or country?
The answer, of course, is yes on the first question, and no on the second. Racism and misogyny are wrong, no matter who you are or where you are from. Period.
Moreover, the notion expressed is contradictory. It commits logical suicide. It's like saying, "I'm a vegetarian, pass the meat." Really, the person is saying that it's wrong to critique others' views, but merely by uttering that, she critiques others. Out of one side of her mouth, she says that there are no truths that applies to others, but out of the other side of her mouth she gives a truth that is supposed to apply to others: that it's wrong to critique others and that one should be tolerant.
This isn't something she thinks just applies to her; she thinks you should follow that rule as well. Here's how you can tease this out in a conversation (that I again borrow from Koukl):
"People have different beliefs, so you should be tolerant of them!"
"Do you believe that?"
"Yup."
"Then that's true for you, but why are you pushing it on me?"
You see? She says I shouldn't judge, but that very sentence is a judgment itself. Why else would the word "should" pop up?
Another example:
"There is no objective truth."
"Is that 'Truth' with a 'big' T, or 'little t'?"
She is in quite a pickle. If she answers no, then you can ignore her--it's just her "belief." But if she answers yes, then she her view commits suicide. She can't escape it; some things are really true, others really false. You know what? It's allright to point that out and say some are right and others are wrong, period. You can't get around it.
About the Author:
Rich Bordner has been writing on religion, ethics, politics, and philosophy for over eight years. He possesses degrees in both English and Philosophy, is currently working on an Master's degree in Philosophy, and is also a public school educator. Whether you have questions about Christianity and apologetics, or just want to join a lively discussion on deep things in life, visit his blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment