Debate on Relativism and the Absolute Truth - Research Paper Example

Debate on Relativism and the Absolute Truth In this world, people tend to run after the fall of an idea by subjecting the idea to numerous criticisms. In the early centuries, before the advent of scientific theories, the society relied on the religious perspectives. Since human beings tend to seek explanation for every aspect that they come across in the society, they would tend to disapprove the present idea. Although this has been the nature of human beings, certain facts or perceptions are irreplaceable. For a long time, the science world accepted Newton theories without challenging them; later scientists realized that these theories need changes. Relativism is a perception, which posits that moral values or the conception of truth are not absolute but are subject to acceptance depending with the view of the individual1. The concept of relativism has puzzled many theologians and philosophers with respect to the Christian views. While many people tend to accept Christian teachings as the absolute truth, some believe that the teachings are relative. It appears that many people, across various cultures, in the world have various notions about what they perceive to be true. On one hand, fundamental theologians advocate for the absolute truth. On the second side, the proponent of neo-modern ethics tends to question the traditional version about truth. Theologians and other theorists have taken the trouble of analyzing relativism with respect to the religious teachings. The puzzle emanates from the convictions built by a given society against certain morals. For instance, the scientific theories and the religious teaching about the existence of God do leads to many questions. A person may take a wild imagination about the existence of God, leading to a theory about the same. The consequence of such action would be emergence of a given theory. Proponent of the absolute truth believes that one cannot preach the gospel while arguing on a middle ground. This view tends to suggest that a Christian teaching or a given notion belong to one of the two sides: absolute truth or wrong. For example, when a person falls in water, it is evident that the person would be wet. This outcome does not give any room for meddling between the person coming out of water when dry and the person coming out of water when wet. The revelation of the above action enables us to argue that absolute truth exists. While this appears to be so, many people tend argue or stagger when issues regarding Christianity are mentioned. For instance, how much truth should a Christian accept in relation to certain principle in Christianity. Analysts have observed that a division exists between Christians advocating for absolute truth and relativist. By definition, relativism subjects every issue to a person’s interpretation. The question that arises from the philosophy relativism is that how much should the society accept as the truth? Alternatively, do Christians have boundaries of accepting a given teaching as the absolute truth? The universality in the Christian teaching absolves one from the dogmas, which would rise from question “how true is true”2. The perception that one develops about a given notion is critical in making an informed judgment. However, Christians do believe on the absolute truth. Thus, the religious teachings are not subject to a given interpretation, but they should be the way they appear. In this sense, one would be able to choose what way to take. It is arguable that relativism would allow the wrong interpretation to form part of the teachings. For example, in the world, theories developed by scientists are subject to proof. On the contrary, the Christian world has theories that they accept as the absolute truth. In essence, the choice that a person makes is either wrong or right without taking side to a given interpretation. Relativism rejects the sovereignty God and projects the truth as a notion, which a woman or a man has perceived. Ideally, when the sky, for instance, is blue then that is its color. First the conception that one develops in relation to a given facts reveals the ideologies that the person would wish the society to accept. Unfortunately, one may initiate arguments that tend to justify a wrong issue, but the truth remains to be the truth. However much arguments that a person may generate, a fact would not change. For instance, nearly every Christian knows that Jesus redeemed the world through his blood. Proponent of the relativism objects this notion about Jesus. Despite the objection they may make about the existence of Christian doctrines, the Biblical references against the above fact are accessible and they have not changed. This means that when Christians accept relativism, they will be denying their own faith3. A religious person has to profess the precept of the religion. On the contrary, relativist argue that the interpretation they give to a certain view should serve to the help the society understand the meaning of a given event. For instance, a relativist may argue that killing is not bad because of some reasons, which he or she is able to justify. On the other side, the absolute truth Christians profess views the action as bad. It does not matter the interpretation that the society or the relativist may give to a given matter, what would be important is the identity of the interpretation. Proponents of relativism promote debate on every aspect in the society, the argument flouted is since Christianity is a social aspect, its teaching are subject to debate. On the contrary, Christian believers contend that there are moral absolutes. In this sense, the Christian law is the absolute truth. This provision dictates that followers of this faith must use the laws as mirrors that would indicate their infirmities. Ideally, in the views of relativists, the Christian laws are void and non-consequential to those that do not profess the Christian ideologies. On the other hand, the Christian laws would convict both non-believers and believers and because it is the absolute truth. In essence, the interpretation given by the Christian in justifying the law is that law helps in identifying the wrong committed. Thus when one commits a crime, he or she will be convicted using law as the reference. For example, the society believes in the existence of church as a structure because it exists. In the same way, the law exists because the society accepts its existence. In the Christian view, the truth that stems from the law does not have a substitute. For example, it is an acceptable belief that we are living on planet earth. This fact is not subject to substitutions because we need to give an interpretation to suite our own interest. Philosophers have directed much effort in searching for the absolute truth. The search for truth has taken various forms, which include testing and disapproving. The ability to test means that some reference point must exist. Thus, truth cannot be relative as proposed by the theory of relativism. Bible is the common book used by various factions professing the Christian faith. The truth that the bible professes is not subject to different interpretation because it is the same truth. As a reference, it must be able to distinguish between the good and the bad. It is hard for a person to balance between the bad and good i.e. one would observe that the tomato is rotting because it is so or the tomato is fresh because it has some given traits. In this sense, absolute truth must be the reference point which the society should use to interpret a given facts. Many philosophers contend that human being like disapproving ideas of others. It is evident that the ideas are subject to disapproval because of a given absolute. By using the absolute, one would be able to see the boundary between what the society should accept as right and what it should deny. On the contrary, relativism provides room for accepting both sides while subjecting the interpretation to a given condition. This does not sound acceptable by proponent of absolute truth because everything would be deemed as evil and at the same time as godly. Religious philosophers and proponents of the absolute truth believe that the Christian teachings should be accepted the way they are without amendments. On the other hand, relativists argue that the interpretation of the teaching can differ depending on an individual perspective. Ideally, the two factions cannot settle on a common ground because the two sides are distant apart. It is notable, that a scientist can develop a theory, but would be quick to demonstrate that the ideal condition or the absolute condition is hard to achieve. The argument tends to illustrate that science believes in absolute truth and the truth is the reference point. In this sense, the absolute truth is the perfection that the religion would demand from a believer not a middle ground. Apparently, in the Christian teachings, lessons that Christian learnt address the issue of truth and false. A false notion does not meet the standard that gauges the truth. This means that without the standard, the truth would not exist4. In addition, a common perception in the society might be blinding when the interpretation that led to the existence of the notion was not the absolute truth. Critics contend that relativism does not demand a particular attribute for everyone with respect to morals. Conversely, absolute truth would demand a similar attribute for every person in the same situation. The conception that a person has the right to make a choice in a moral situation mocks Christianity. The absolute truth holds that a moral precept exists and is true irrespective of whether the society believes it or not. Absolute truth cannot stem from personal conviction nor does it disappear when a culture or an individual reject it5. The precepts of Christianity convict the world in a similar manner. While the world has adopted its own way of judging the Christian precept, its absolutes cannot change to suite the cultural inclination of a given society. Relativism is a threat to the absolute truth because it replaces the morals that the society should practice with personal convictions. For example, a personal conviction drives an individual towards doing what his or heart desires. However, the society cannot cling on this view because it would make the society to lose its locus. The religious systems have critical contribution to the debate against relativism verses the absolute truth. The moral norms accepted by the religious systems convicts the whole world. For example, the Christian morals convict the whole world. Critically, no one ever came into the world possessed of refined ethical judgment6. Nor does the absolute truth lead from the head of every individual. Human being is a mortal creature, dictated by space and time. In this sense, the morals, which human beings should practice, must begin from somewhere. Human interaction is critical in promoting certain precepts in the society. During interactions people tend to grasp new virtues or develop different views as shaped by various cultures. Since human beings move from one place to the other meeting people with a different cultural practice is inevitable. Critics have observed that when human beings meet in large groupings they tend to learn how to articulate their virtues, and to argue for the values and virtues, which correlate. The norms, which we observe universally, must have emanated using similar routes. If this were the absolute truth about the development of moral precepts, which command universal acceptance, relativist view would subject the same to questioning7. The result of the personal interpretation to the above issue would be a distorted form of the original. In essence, the absolute truth is the original precept with which one can use as a reference. This truth is not subject to individual interpretation. Religious systems have embraced the concept of the absolute truth because the system is universal and does not have a substitute. The critics of absolute truth have indicated that since universal morality exists, then it means that the human race have some common precepts, which they believe apply to humankind. The opinions that people project against a given issues about moral seems to project similar idea. Such arguments have enabled religious philosophers to contend the existence of absolute truth while rejecting relativism8. It is arguable that when different cultures project a similar view against a given issue, for example killing fellow human being, the moral rules abandons the relativist ideas against the same. In this case, it does not matter one’s view of the matter, but the absolute view of the matter. In conclusion, relativism theory posits that anyone has the choice of developing a given perception in relation to any issue in the society. On the other hand, proponent for absolute truth argues that universal truth has a single interpretation that is true. Religious systems usually root for the absolute truth, which transcends personal or cultural inclination. The faith professed in a religious system appears as it occurs. While the differences in cultural and geographical space define human distribution, moral precepts are identical across these backgrounds. The perception built by relativists may confuse because it accepts cultural or personal interpretation to universally acceptable issues. Bibliography Don S. Browning. Universalism Vs. Relativism: Making Moral Judgments in a Changing, Pluralistic, and Threatening World, (London: Rowman & Littlefield), 2006, pp, 131-145. Patrick J. J. Phillips. The Challenge of Relativism: Its Nature and Limits, (New York: Continuum International Publishing Group), 2011, pp 27-47. Steven D. Hales. A Companion to Relativism, (New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons), 2011, pp 1-37. Steven Lukes. Moral Relativism, (New York: Profile Books), 2011, pp, 1-20. Read More