'Teacher: Welcome, students. This is the first day of class, and so I want to lay down some ground rules. First, since no one has the truth, you should be open-minded to the opinions of your fellow students. Second... Elizabeth, do you have a question?
Elizabeth: Yes, I do. If nobody has the truth, isn't that a good reason for me not to listen to my fellow students? After all, if nobody has the truth, why should I waste my time listening to other people and their opinions? What's the point? Only if somebody has the truth does it make sense to be open-minded. Don't you agree?
Teacher: No, I don't. Are you claiming to know the truth? Isn't that a bit arrogant and dogmatic?
Elizabeth: Not at all. Rather I think it's dogmatic, as well as arrogant, to assert that no single person on earth knows the truth. After all, have you met every person in the world and quizzed them exhaustively? If not, how can you make such a claim? Also, I believe it is actually the opposite of arrogance to say that I will alter my opinions to fit the truth whenever and wherever I find it. And if I happen to think that I have good reason to believe I do know the truth and would like to share it with you, why wouldn't you listen to me? Why would you automatically discredit my opinion before it is even uttered? I thought we were supposed to listen to everyone's opinion.
Teacher: This should prove to be an interesting semester.
Another Student: (blurts out) Ain't that the truth (the students laugh).'
From Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl's book Relativism
--
Unfortunately, moral relativism can be far more devastating than simply choosing not listen to others; it can mean not listening to others even when we are hurting them.
Here is a quote from the Italian fascist dictator, Mussolini.
"Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable" (from Mussolini’s Diuturna, pages 374-77 cited in A Refutation of Moral Relativism by Peter Kreeft).
Mussolini had his motives for claiming that there are no objective morals as did Huxley.
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption…. We don’t know because we don’t want to know."
Huxley goes on to write:
"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever" (Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means, p. 270, 273, 1946, cited in Can Man Live Without God by Ravi Zacharias).
Huxley's position had nothing to do with integrity, he chose his beliefs so he could justify his way of life, "political and erotic revolt". The truth was only valuable to Huxley if it served his interests, if not; he wanted nothing to do with it. (Dallas Willard points out that there is a real tension between desire and truth. This is why many prefer to accept fictions rather than deal with reality. The Genius of Jesus and The Power of Porn highlight these tensions.)
Despite ignoring truth, Mussolini and Huxley knew that truth was a necessary foundation for morality.
"When there is no truth that deserves assent from everybody, the only arbiter
in our competing desires is power. Where truth doesn't define what's right,
might makes right. And where might makes right, weak people pay with their
lives. When the universal claim of truth disappears, what you get is not
peaceful pluralism or loving relationships; what you get is concentration camps
and gulags."
John Piper, November 2006
Os Guinness (below) points out that "without truth there is only manipulation" and without truth there cannot be true personal freedom.
(5 minutes)
If you listened to Os you will understand why Jesus said, "The truth will set you free." A man is not free until he is a real man (e.g. honest, brave, kind etc) and likewise every little girl wants to grow up and be a real woman (caring, courageous, etc). But as one man pointed out, "The truth will set you free, but first it will make you angry." There are many things we would rather not wrestle with but we must if we are to mature. ("The evidence of maturity is love.")
Some,
believing that truth is morally oppressive, avoid responsibility by
claiming to be morally neutral, but there are two problems with this: moral neutrality is a myth (see also)
and moral judgements are necessary for compassion. When you see poverty
and say, "This is wrong. It ought not to be this way" you are making a
moral judgement. Without such a judgement compassion would not be
possible. When we see injustice and say, "That's wrong. It's got to
stop" that is a moral judgement.*
Justice and freedom are impossible without truth. Truth is not
oppressive; don't believe that lie. It's lies which ruin lives. It is time for truth. (See Truth? for an in-depth discussion on the nature of truth.)
Some people think that such a stance would lead to the end of pluralism and multiculturalism. Is that true? Pluralism and multiculturalism are good things; but moral relativism does not have to be embraced to enjoy them. The answer, as Os Guinness points out, is examined pluralism.
I must digress for a moment because the issue of subjective truth and objective truth trips a lot of people up. In the discussion between the teacher and student above the teacher only thinks the student is arrogant because she misunderstands what kind of truth claims many religious truth claims are. The teacher thinks all religious truth claims are subjective. The student is trying to point out that if all religious truth claims are subjective then there really are no good reasons to take those views seriously. To clarify the issue let's look at the difference between a subjective truth claim and an objective truth claim. A subjective truth claim is neither true or false in an objective sense. It can be true for me but not for you, e.g. "I like strawberry ice-cream" is a subjective truth claim because I'm
actually talking about me, my preference, not about the ice-cream. It would be silly for me
to say that you are wrong for not liking strawberry ice-cream. But what if I said, "The world is flat". Would it be wrong of you to point out that I was mistaken? Of course not. The reason it would not be wrong of you to correct me is because I'm not talking about me (the subject) I'm talking about an object "the world". "Objective truth claims are either true or false, subjective truth claims are neither true or false" (Greg Koukl). The teacher in the conversation above thought the student was arrogant because the teacher failed to realize that many religious truth claims are objective truth claims and therefore should be tested rather than dismissed. Perhaps this will help make it a bit clearer. If I say I love Jesus that is a subjective truth claim because I'm actually talking about me. I'm talking about who "I" love. But if I say "Jesus' body physically rose from the dead" I'm not talking about myself. I'm making an objective truth claim which either accurately described what happened or it does not. Now I a may be wrong, but make no mistake about the kind of claim I'm making. I am claiming that Jesus physically rose from the dead and that this happened whether people believe it actually happened or not. My beliefs, my likes and dislikes have nothing to do with what is objectively true. (Though obviously we believe what we believe because we think it is true. Many of the claims of Christians, Muslims and others are objective truth claims and therefore should be examined.)
Whether a person is able to discover the truth regarding religion is not one of intelligence but integrity. The problem has never been a lack of evidence, rather the suppression of it (see 6 Modern Myths by Philip Sampson and Miracles which can be found half way down the home page.). Like Huxley, many have spread lies in an attempt to justify their way of life.
"Is not the truth of the matter really this, that man is just like a child who would rather be free from being under his parents' eyes? Is not this what men want? To be free from being under the eyes of God? When Christ resolves to become the Saviour of the world, a lament goes through all humanity. Sighing grievously they ask: Why do you do this? You will make us all unhappy." - Soren Kierkegaard
"Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil."
Whether a person is able to accept the truth depends on how much they really want and love truth. (Some claim to have strong arguments against religion, but upon closer examination it is nothing but ridicule, and ridicule is not an argument. See The New Atheists) If you are the kind of person who will speak the truth even if it is an inconvenience to you you are not far from the Kingdom of God. But if you think of the truth as a tool you can use only when it suits you you will not be able to accept truth even when it is right in front of you.
"To try to explain truth to him who loves it not, is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation." - George MacDonald
Now having said the things above you might be surprised to know that there is a good reason for rejecting the god that is too often preached (see salvation). But there are no good reasons for rejecting the God who is.
You may be suspicious; even if the truth can be known, you know that mere facts cannot change your life. Facts cannot change anyone's life if they are not prepared to act on what they discover. That is the ultimate test. Jesus said, "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." (Some have genuinely tried to follow Jesus but say that He let them down. I have been frustrated and disillusioned in trying to live the Christian life but thankfully someone pointed out to me that what I was trying to do was not what Jesus actually asked. Sincere people often think
they are trying to do what Jesus asked, but actually they are trying to
live in a way which is unliveable. If you think the Christian life is unliveable I strongly recommend The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard. Particularly chapters 5, 6 and 7. It is wonderful when we find out the truth because only the truth can set us free.)
Do you remember the words of Morpheus to Neo?
"Neo you must understand, there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path." (from the movie "The Matrix")
Do you really want to find the truth? Step one, find out who is worthy of your trust and obedience for only they can set you free. Step two, if you really believe that person can set you free you are going to have to trust them by taking their words seriously.[2]
1. If you don't yet know the truth but are not willing to take a step of trust in Jesus until you are intellectually satisfied then I highly recommend Long Journey Home by
Os Guinness; it was written for the intellectual seeker. If you are the kind of person who likes a good argument I suggest you look at the following arguments. Together they make a very strong case. If you are serious I would do it in the following order a) I.D. Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet are a good start b) Look at the argument for moral law (see the reference list on the following URL). c) The case for the resurrection of Jesus (what Gary Habermas has written is worth looking into) d) prophecy regarding Jesus first coming in the Bible (this is often over looked but this is what God used as evidence to show that Jesus was the Messiah (There is a good article on this in The Apologetic Study Bible). e) Look into the reliability of the New Testament, the book Reinventing Jesus takes a close look at this. f) Look into what good Christianity has done the world (See Christianity on Trial) g) Perhaps you don't like the last point. But we cannot judge a philosophy or belief by it's abuse, therefore it is worth looking at Jesus teaching and example as recorded in the NT to see when those who claimed to be his followers actually did what he said. h) Don't reject God because of a misguided theology (see salvation).
Note: Perhaps
you are placing your hope in technology and globalization. There are
two problems with that: 1. Globalization, despite its benefits has many
unintended consequences (see "Globalization and its Human Consequences" by Os Guinness part 1 and part 2) 2. Whether we like it or not we are still going to die so whether Jesus words are true or not are very important (See Salvation).
