"All religions, cultures, and lifestyles are equally valid."
Have you ever heard that? It is a very popular view espoused in discussions about religion, morality, and sometimes politics. The view is that there are no absolute truths or objective morals that are true for all people and cultures; rather, truth is relative. All roads lead to Rome, and all religions lead to God, as they say.
Therefore, the conventional wisdom goes, one ought not judge other religions, lifestyles, or cultures as wrong or misguided. Doing so would make about as much sense as me judging your choice of one ice cream over another. It is okay if "my truth" gives me some personal benefit, but I shouldn't be so naive to think that it applies to others. Tolerance is the buzz word of the day.
Chances are that either you've heard this many times before or you yourself think this way.
What should we make of this point of view?
First off, while folks might say they believe this, no one believes it deep down. Our actions betray our real beliefs. If a friend claimed to sincerely believe its ok to torture babies for fun, you wouldn't be "tolerant" towards that belief--you would recommend they get help quickly, to paraphrase philosopher William Craig. Your friend would simply be mistaken; it doesn't matter what culture he comes from.
Let's conduct a little thought experiment. Say you are at work after hours, and you over hear an African-American female co-worker converse with a white male co-worker. As you spy in, the female looks hurt. Suddenly, the male co-worker shouts various racial slurs and calls her a derogatory part of the female anatomy. Has the male done anything wrong? Not just wrong "for you," but wrong, end of story. If the male and female were both from, say, an Arabic or Asian culture, would that change things?
The answer is not complicated. The man in the situation is wrong, not just "for you," but really wrong. It does not make a difference what culture he comes from.
Next, the person who says "there is no universal truth, so you should be tolerant of others' beliefs" contradicts herself. At the end of the day, she says that it's wrong to say others are wrong! On the one hand, she says that truth and morality are relative, but on the other hand she offers that as if it is pure, unadulerated, obvious truth.
She thinks this doesn't only apply to her. Talk to her more, and you'll find out she thinks you should agree with her. Here's a conversation that demonstrates this (that I borrow from Greg Koukl):
"Morality is relative. People have different moral beliefs, so you shouldn't judge them."
"Is that your morality?"
"For sure!"
"If that's your morality, by all means, go with it, but don't judge me and push it on me."
See where this is going? By using words like "should" or "ought," she saws off the branch she is sitting on.
Or take this example:
"There is no 'Truth' with a big 'T,' only 'little t' truths."
"Is that true for you, or just true period?"
She's in a tight spot. If she answers the former, then she has contradicted herself, but if the latter, she is being consistent, but it's just "her truth," and she can be safely ignored. She most likely doesn't want to make her view irrelevant like that, though. The fact of the matter is that saying some are right and others are wrong is unavoidable. Best to drop the "big T/little t truth" malarkey.
Have you ever heard that? It is a very popular view espoused in discussions about religion, morality, and sometimes politics. The view is that there are no absolute truths or objective morals that are true for all people and cultures; rather, truth is relative. All roads lead to Rome, and all religions lead to God, as they say.
Therefore, the conventional wisdom goes, one ought not judge other religions, lifestyles, or cultures as wrong or misguided. Doing so would make about as much sense as me judging your choice of one ice cream over another. It is okay if "my truth" gives me some personal benefit, but I shouldn't be so naive to think that it applies to others. Tolerance is the buzz word of the day.
Chances are that either you've heard this many times before or you yourself think this way.
What should we make of this point of view?
First off, while folks might say they believe this, no one believes it deep down. Our actions betray our real beliefs. If a friend claimed to sincerely believe its ok to torture babies for fun, you wouldn't be "tolerant" towards that belief--you would recommend they get help quickly, to paraphrase philosopher William Craig. Your friend would simply be mistaken; it doesn't matter what culture he comes from.
Let's conduct a little thought experiment. Say you are at work after hours, and you over hear an African-American female co-worker converse with a white male co-worker. As you spy in, the female looks hurt. Suddenly, the male co-worker shouts various racial slurs and calls her a derogatory part of the female anatomy. Has the male done anything wrong? Not just wrong "for you," but wrong, end of story. If the male and female were both from, say, an Arabic or Asian culture, would that change things?
The answer is not complicated. The man in the situation is wrong, not just "for you," but really wrong. It does not make a difference what culture he comes from.
Next, the person who says "there is no universal truth, so you should be tolerant of others' beliefs" contradicts herself. At the end of the day, she says that it's wrong to say others are wrong! On the one hand, she says that truth and morality are relative, but on the other hand she offers that as if it is pure, unadulerated, obvious truth.
She thinks this doesn't only apply to her. Talk to her more, and you'll find out she thinks you should agree with her. Here's a conversation that demonstrates this (that I borrow from Greg Koukl):
"Morality is relative. People have different moral beliefs, so you shouldn't judge them."
"Is that your morality?"
"For sure!"
"If that's your morality, by all means, go with it, but don't judge me and push it on me."
See where this is going? By using words like "should" or "ought," she saws off the branch she is sitting on.
Or take this example:
"There is no 'Truth' with a big 'T,' only 'little t' truths."
"Is that true for you, or just true period?"
She's in a tight spot. If she answers the former, then she has contradicted herself, but if the latter, she is being consistent, but it's just "her truth," and she can be safely ignored. She most likely doesn't want to make her view irrelevant like that, though. The fact of the matter is that saying some are right and others are wrong is unavoidable. Best to drop the "big T/little t truth" malarkey.
About the Author:
Rich Bordner has been writing on religion, ethics, politics, and philosophy for over eight years. He possesses degrees in both Philosophy and English, is currently working on an Master's degree in Philosophy, and is also a public school educator. Whether you have questions about politics, values, and religion, or just want to participate in lively discussion on deep things in life, visit his blog.
0 comments:
Post a Comment