Relativism
Does Relativisim Matter ? by Simon Blackburn
September 11th, we are told, changed the world. That may be true, at least because it has changed how many people perceive the world. And a change in peoples’ ideas is a change in the world. We should not, however, expect many of those changes to be for the better, since it must be a general rule that when people are angry and afraid their ideas and actions go worse. . .
Unfortunately however, the voices the public hear have been less than impressive. The debate in this country, and still more in the United States, too often aligns itself around a simple polarity. Are we to be religious? In that case, it is assumed, there are real truths, real standards, real values which we can use to guide our own behaviour and that of others. Or, are we to be atheists or agnostics? In that case, it is again assumed, there are no real truths or standards or values, and we fall prey to a variety of ailments: materialism, cynicism, nihilism, relativism. . .
I want to highlight something curious about both positions, and hence about the shape of the debate about relativism. It is as if each participant sees talk of truth, (together with its partners reason, proof, evidence, probability) as something with which we clothe ourselves, an extra layer which we like to put on. Then the absolutist thinks that truth gives us, as it were, clothing of state. Truth and the rest are the symbols of authority. Like professional judges, until we don them we are not suitably clothed, not speaking with the full ex cathedra dignity we need. By contrast, the relativist sees the clothing as a mask. We put it on in order to disguise the naked realities of power and persuasion, rhetoric and ideology, spin and agendas.
If this is the landscape, the two sides are very apt to talk past each other. I illustrate this in my book Being Good. There I tell a story about this which I very much like, and at the risk of boring anyone who has read that book, I would like to tell it again here. It concerns a friend of mine, who was present at a high-powered ethics institute which had put on a forum in which representatives of the great religions held a panel. First the Buddhist talked of the ways to calm, the mastery of desire, the path of enlightenment, and the panellists all said ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great’. Then the Hindu talked of the cycles of suffering and birth and rebirth, the teachings of Krishna and the way to release, and they all said ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great’. And so on, until the Catholic priest talked of the message of Jesus Christ, the promise of salvation and the way to life eternal, and they all said ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great’. And he thumped the table and shouted: ‘No! It’s not a question of it if works for me! It’s the true word of the living God, and if you don’t believe it you’re all damned to Hell!’
And they all said: ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great’.
Tweet
Comments
Norm, If you could put this link on the main page for tomorrows coffee I think it would be a great service to your readers:
http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1191#more-1191
Regarding "talking" past oneanother...
The time is ripe for some digerato to tranalate Nietzische for the masses: a kind of Vulgate, if you will. I don't mean in obscure rock lyrics, or more of the same (pithy aphorisms).
I know, "it's hard work". But the divide-and-conquer elite is workin' (their?) ass off.
P.S. a "digerato" is not a specie of digeridoo.
The 'anything goes' consequence of relativism has concerned me for a long time because of the damage it can cause to scientific pursuit. However, I had foolishly assumed it was something infecting social science intellectuals far more than Joe Public. This was until I saw someone (who didn't appear to be an academic, at least in writing style) arguing for the 'truth' of their religion on relativist grounds in a 'God or Not' post (http://www.eternalrevolution.com/archives/2005/09/05/guest-post-an-atheists-view/#comment-81).
It is great to see people like Blackburn and Dawkins coming out in defence of Realism; Dawkins does so in 'Devils Chaplain' and Blackburn looks at the issue in 'Truth' (I've only started reading this). Yet, I too think a 'Joe Publicised' version of such a defence is now needed. Perhaps a concerted effort to support the truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in public forums using relativism would be a start?
Agnosticism = assumption of no real truths or standards or values, and falling prey to a variety of ailments: materialism, cynicism, nihilism, relativism.
What a load of bullocks.
Christiaan, whatever you paid for your dictionary, you were robbed.
.
I would have enjoyed posting on the comment section below this one
Uh... Christiaan is just quoting from the article and then scoffing at this excerpt which was given as an expample of what "some" people think an agnostic is.
*Tear for Christians that suck.
And I am thusly vindicated in my earlier-in-the-week statements regarding athiest and theist traditions. Those who cannot come to a common ground become evangelists in their own right, and lose that which made them just to begin with.
Fact is an illusion of perception...
There is no spoon.
More self aggrandizing mumbo jumbo.
And I am thusly vindicated in my earlier-in-the-week statements regarding athiest and theist traditions. Those who cannot come to a common ground become evangelists in their own right, and lose that which made them just to begin with.
Fact is an illusion of perception...
There is no spoon.
More self aggrandizing mumbo jumbo.
The situation of religion is more complex than that. In purely objective settings, where there are hard, cold facts which can be critically analyzed, relativism stops the thinking process cold. However, when dealing with unsolvable problems, with ancient religious text, and with superhuman abstracts, then there is no reason to chide agnostics or other non-believers.
Yes, there may be a truth, and as agnostics, we realize that we don't know what it is.
I'm of the opinion that absolute truths do indeed exist but the intractible problem is clearing away our own inherent biases in order to clearly see them. In practical and real terms we live in a relativistic world. Disagreement over truth however does not preclude its existence. I think this can apply to scientific pursuits as well as metaphysical or theological questions. The true danger is absolute certainty and the belief that one is without fault or bias.
probably there are certain absolute truths (which would probably include the laws of physics etc), but when you are talking about morality i dont see how there can be. morality is based on what you feel is good and should be valued, so unless there is an absolute good, then i dont see how there can be claims of absolute morality. probably a rabbit would say it is immoral to eat meat, but a lion might disagree.
Simon Blackburn, don't hurt yourself trying to sound interesting.
Tossing out a name does not make you witty. Attempt to compose a rational rebuttal next time.
Herm. Funny thing about relativism... most people have no idea what it is.
Relativism comes in two flavors.
The first says "Yes, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. He belonged to a slave-owning society. He clearly had vision about human freedom, but, equally clearly, did not have sufficient vision (or had some other difficulty that caused him to fail) to recognize the evil of slavery. He is not an evil person, even though he did evil things (own slaves)."
Note that an absolutist who rejects this flavor of relativism has the quandary of calling Thomas Jefferson an enemy of human freedom, or of suggesting that good people can own slaves. Neither makes a whole lot of sense.
It is only the other flavor of relativism that is dangerous: the idea that every society's rules are equally valid and moral. Thomas Jefferson was okay to own slaves, because he lived in a slave owning society. The instant our society rejected slavery, then it became evil. (I suppose during Reconstruction, it was just "pretty-kinda-sorta evil".)
The idea that there could be good people who do bad things because of different set of assumptions and perceptions is important... especially when the good people doing bad things are us (individually, or as a small group, larger group, nation, planet, etc..)
And so on, until the Muslim cleric talked of the message of the Prophet Muhammad, the promise of salvation and the way to an altruistic and humble life, and they all said ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great’. And he thumped the table and shouted: ‘No! It’s not a question of it if works for me! It’s the true word of the living Allah, and if you don’t believe it I'll cut your head off, Allah willing!’
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060203/capt.llp11802031632.britainprophetdrawings_llp118.jpg?x=380&y=235&sig=quc130JmhG8.q4T1WhptDA--
And so on, until the Muslim cleric talked of the message of the Prophet Muhammad, the promise of salvation and the way to an altruistic and humble life, and they all said ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great’. And he thumped the table and shouted: ‘No! It’s not a question of it if works for me! It’s the true word of the living Allah, and if you don’t believe it I'll cut your head off, Allah willing!’
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060203/capt.llp11802031632.britainprophetdrawings_llp118.jpg?x=380&y=235&sig=quc130JmhG8.q4T1WhptDA--
::probably there are certain absolute truths (which would probably include the laws of physics etc), but when you are talking about morality i dont see how there can be.::
Strange as it may sound, there is very little stability in the so-called laws of physics. Quantum mechanics is quite puzzling to say the least, and is probably more akin to mysticism than hard science.
::morality is based on what you feel is good and should be valued, so unless there is an absolute good, then i dont see how there can be claims of absolute morality.::
Most theology revolves around the fact that there is an absolute good. The good is God, or the Perfect, the Realization, etc.
Through reason alone one comes to know what God is, because it is reasoned that God is the Perfect Reason (the recursion is wonderfully mysterious, eh?).
We tend to think of reason as an operation of human machinery, but truly religious people view reason as an objective spiritual aspect, something which is able to know that temporal things do not last, including the human body and the mind.
If reason knows that temporal things do not last, it must have been witnessing this phenomenon. Otherwise, this knowledge would also come to pass. Hence, reason is somehow removed from the events that are processing themselves in time.
There is a passage in the bible that says something like "If a man is nothing yet believes he is something, he deceives himself and the truth is not in him." It seems many branches of the Christian faith have lost this message, that a man is actually nothing, physically nothing. There is smoke and mirrors. That's it.
And reason leads one to the truth. After all, would it be the truth if it was unreasonable?
We could compare reason to the wind. You can't tell when it is coming or when it is going. You feel it on the skin and say, "That is the wind."
Where? In the name you have put on it? Where is it? Show it to me. Prove it. You know you can't, but you know it's there.
Most of those people we could call seers of the past have testified that one cannot see God and go on living. It vaporizes you.
So who files the report? That is a mystery.
Is mystery a bad thing? We as a species tend to think so, or at least we act as if that's the case. We like straight answers. After all, it is rather satisfying to know that you're right, and nobody actually enjoys being wrong.
But to be a mystery is in God's nature. If there were no mystery in God, God would not be God by definition. God's mystery must be perfect mystery. Therefore, it can be reasoned that one cannot actually know God. This obviously poses quite a significant problem.
And this problem leads one to the meaning of the Son of God.
Here is the logic -- God exists. God is perfect. God is unknowable. Yet God knows himself. As existence is an attribute of God, to exist is perfect. If God is perfect, he must have perfect knowledge of himself. Since this knowledge is perfect, it also has an existence, and this is called God the Son, or the Word of God Jesus Christ (which translates as "The Salvation of I AM"). Between these two Gods, there must be a perfect exchange of information (otherwise the Father and Son would be corrupted), and since this exchange is also perfect, it must exist, and this is called the Holy Spirit.
In various spiritual traditions we find the same principles present, but often disguised with other language, in allegories and such.
"Through reason alone one comes to know what God is, because it is reasoned that God is the Perfect Reason (the recursion is wonderfully mysterious, eh?)."
Mysterious, No. It is an empty circular argument and provides nothing.