Tag Archives: Relativism

Commentary

Greg Koukl and the seven fatal flaws of relativism

11 Comments

There are two kinds of relativism, moral and epistemic. The first kind of relativism says that there are no objective moral rules, but only what individuals or groups decide for themselves in certain times and places – like taste in foods or fashions. The second kind says that no propositional statements about reality are objectively true.

I found this list of the seven flaws of moral relativism at the Australian site Faith Interface.

Here’s the summary:

  1. Moral relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing.
  2. Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil.
  3. Relativists can’t place blame or accept praise.
  4. Relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice.
  5. Relativists can’t improve their morality.
  6. Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions.
  7. Relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance.

Here’s my favorite flaw of relativism (#6):

Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions. What’s there to talk about? If morals are entirely relative and all views are equal, then no way of thinking is better than another. No moral position can be judged as adequate or deficient, unreasonable, acceptable, or even barbaric. If ethical disputes make sense only when morals are objective, then relativism can only be consistently lived out in silence. For this reason, it is rare to meet a rational and consistent relativist, as most are quick to impose their own moral rules like “It’s wrong to push your own morality on others”. This puts relativists in an untenable position – if they speak up about moral issues, they surrender their relativism; if they do not speak up, they surrender their humanity. If the notion of moral discourse makes sense intuitively, then moral relativism is false.

I sometimes get a lot of flack from atheists who complain that I don’t let them make any moral statements without asking first them to ground morality on their worldview. And that’s because on atheism morality IS NOT rationally grounded, so they can’t answer. In an accidental universe, you can only describe people’s personal preferences or social customs, that vary by time and place. It’s all arbitrary – like having discussions about what food is best or what clothing is best. The answer is always going to be “it depends”. It depends on the person who is speaking because it’s a subjective claim, not an objective claim. There is no objective way we ought to behave.

The whole point of atheism is to pursue pleasure without the bonds of morality – there is no other reason to do anything on atheism except for the pleasure it gives you. You do fashionable things to feel good getting praise from your neighbors, and you do unfashionable things in private to make yourself feel good and you hope that no one who is powerful enough to hold you accountable ever finds out. There’s no way you were made to be.

Polemics

Sean McDowell on whether Christians should embrace postmodernism

Leave a comment

The article by Sean McDowell is here.

Excerpt:

In Postmodern Youth Ministry, for example, Tony Jones argues that postmodernity is the most important culture shift of the past 500 years, upending our theology, philosophy, epistemology (how we know things), and church practice. It is an “earthquake that has changed the landscape of academia and is currently rocking Western culture.” (p. 11). Thus, to be relevant in ministry today, according to Jones and other postmodernists, we must shed our modern tendencies and embrace the postmodern shift.

For the longest time I simply accepted that we inhabit a postmodern world and that we must completely transform our approach to ministry to be effective today. But that all changed when I had the opportunity of hearing philosopher William Lane Craig speak at an apologetics conference not too long ago.

[…]In the introduction to Reasonable Faith, Craig provocatively claims, “Indeed, I think that getting people to believe that we live in a postmodern culture is one of the craftiest deceptions that Satan has yet devised” (p. 18). Accordingly, we ought to stop emphasizing argumentation and apologetics and just share our narrative. Craig develops this idea further:

And so Satan deceives us into voluntarily laying aside our best weapons of logic and evidence, thereby ensuring unawares modernism’s triumph over us. If we adopt this suicidal course of action, the consequences for the church in the next generation will be catastrophic. Christianity will be reduced to but another voice in a cacophony of competing voices, each sharing its own narrative and none commending itself as the objective truth about reality, while scientific naturalism shapes our culture’s view of how the world really is (p. 18-19).

In a personal email, Craig relayed to me that he believes postmodernism is largely being propagated in our church by misguided youth pastors. While he meant the comment more to elicit a smile than to be taken as a stab in the back, I can’t help but wonder if he is right.

There was a podcast that Sean did a while back on the worldview of Christian youth, where he explains how they think that religious claims are all basically personal preferences, not real knowledge that can be reasoned about and supported by evidence. It really eats into their ability to act in Christian ways when they don’t think Christianity is true.

My personal experiences with “Christian” postmodernism

Growing up, I was often confronted with the idea that God was not somehow insulated from logic and evidence. The main people who asserted that idea were the church leaders and campus club leaders. They were very skeptical of controversial doctrines like Hell, exclusive salvation, inerrancy and authorial intent. They didn’t like the law of non-contradiction, and they didn’t like historical or scientific evidence. Some others didn’t even like the idea that the Bible could override their emotions and intuitions.

As I grew older, I began to uncover why the postmoderns in leadership believed that God is not bound by the laws of logic, and that evidence was not as authoritative as personal experiences and stories. It was because of their desire for popularity. They did not want to have to confront people with exclusive and judgmental Christian claims. They did not want to have defend orthodox Christianity as true, using logic and evidence. The leaders even attacked the people who tried to introduce thinking and reasoning about Christian claims.

Postmodern Christians want to be able say to offer Christianity as one choice in a buffet, with the goal of addressing people’s felt needs. They say things like, “Christianity is true for me, and Hinduism is true for you“, in order to be accepted. And they feel, emotionally and intuitively, that non-judmentalism and non-exclusivism are right. Postmodernism helps them to justify their focus on popularity and their refusal to learn apologetics. They don’t want to learn facts, because they don’t want to have to defend Christianity as being objectively true.

Postmodern Christians are opposed to the idea that Christianity is knowledge, because “knowing for certain” takes away their ability to have “wiggle-room” when they want to do what all the other people are doing. They want to be able to keep God at arms-length when he is morally demanding, while keeping him within arm’s reach for emotional support, when needed – maybe just in private. God “exists” for postmoderns when they need comfort, and he doesn’t “exist” when they want autonomy from the moral law.

News

Is Mike Huckabee a Bible-believing Christian?

36 Comments

Laura from Pursuing Holiness has concerns about Mike Huckabee. (H/T Foxfier)

She writes in part:

In defiance of libertarian laissez-faire, Huckabee has extended his Christian vision to include the poor. “If there are a certain number of kids from single-parent homes who aren’t going to school and don’t have health care, you can say that’s not government’s job,” Huckabee told me. “Well, sweet and fine! But you know what? If the kid’s sitting outside the door of the hospital choking with asthma, do I sit there and say, ‘Oh, I’m sorry, I don’t think, philosophically, government should get involved’? I’d much rather the kid get help than I sit around and say I’m so pure in my ideology.”

I actually don’t think that Huckabee is even a real Republican or a real Christian. Not only is he a crappy tax-raising, amnesty-granting, big government socialist, but I don’t think he isn’t even a Bible-believing Christian.

Consider this in John 14:6:

6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

And this in Acts 4:12:

12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

Look what Huckster says:

Other members of the group politely admitted that they had no doubt that most Israelis, and anyone else who had not accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour, would be spending eternity in Hell. (“That is an issue,” a man named Randy Rebold told me apologetically.) Huckabee’s formulation is considerably more politic. “If somebody asked me, How do I get to Heaven, I would tell them that the only way I personally am aware of is faith in Christ, because I believe the New Testament,” he said. “That’s the only map I got. Somebody says, Well, I got a different map. O.K.! You know what? If it works, I’m not going to argue with you.”

That’s not Christianity. That’s relativism. He doesn’t even have the map he thinks he has.