What is ‘relativism’? The damning philosophy of our day

Relativism has seeped its deceptive roots into almost all aspects of society and culture. From media to entertainment, academia, psychology, and even the church… all have been affected.

Relativism has given rise to postmodernism, which poses a challenge for many Christians in terms of defining and discerning its presence in our society. Postmodernism’s most pronounced characteristic is the philosophical relativism, which is a methodology – a completely new way of analyzing ideas (McCallum, 2019).

Definition: Philosophical relativism is the view that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration. In other words, what is true or right depends on the framework, culture, or individual perspective rather than being universally applicable (or absolute, such as God’s moral law, gender, etc.). It challenges the idea of objective, universal truths by suggesting that knowledge, morality, and truth are always relative to the social, cultural, or personal context.

Those who believe in absolute truth can still concede that relativism [at times] can be applied in terms of subjective opinions about aesthetics, personal preference of food, what someone truly thinks (still does not make it true), etc. However, in the relativistic framework, there are no absolutes.

You can absolutely know nothing absolutely (contradiction).

Relativism obliterates all absolutes, including moral absolutes and any other objective standard, which is dangerous, intellectually dishonest, and produces chaos.

RELATIVISM AND GOODNESS

Moral relativism says, “We cannot know morals. Morals are only contingent upon culture, society, and personal perception of good.” In Christianity, ‘goodness’ is equated with God’s laws, His nature, and His will.

The primary threat to relativists is the concept of moral absolutes. If there are, indeed, permanent and authoritative moral truths, it automatically implies that morality is no longer about nice, warm, fuzzy, vague, soft, negotiable things called “values” but about hard, unyielding, uncompromising, uncomfortable, nonnegotiable things called “laws (Lewis, 1994).”

Or, as Thomas Nagel, an then-atheist, admitted, “I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this ‘cosmic authority problem’ is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time (Thomas, p. 130).”

Even though Nagel said he believes that his Cosmic Authority Problem is responsible for scientism (the belief that science tells us more about truth and is superior to theology and philosophy) and reductionism (reducing all matter down to smaller parts, i.e., does not consider spiritual realities), it is also likely responsible for relativism.

If the definition of goodness is taken from its rightful owner, God, and then determined by the minds of human beings, then the Cosmic Authority Problem is solved for the person who resists God’s authority.

However, no matter how much the atheist or relativist wishes for this to be true, it never will be. Our preferences of moral truths do not objectively determine moral truth.

‘Doing the right thing’ (morality) is often associated with doing ‘the hard thing.’ Good is right despite what we feel or prefer. Those who are relativists do whatever they want; doing whatever one wants is not morality.

Morality is doing what’s right, not necessarily what’s pleasant (Koukl, 1998).

Some examples of decisions made from moral relativism:

(1) a woman who wants to get an abortion because she wants to finish college first: she believes it is morally okay for her to kill her baby based on her preferences, and

(2) the wife who wants to cheat on her husband because she feels more passionate about her ex.

Pleasantries, comforts, and desires are relative to the person, but according to scripture, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”

(Jeremiah 17:9)

According to this passage, if the human heart is determining what is good, then good will be lost due to the deceitful nature of the heart.

Moral relativism robs people of passion, moral outrage, and zeal for any good cause because relativism disarms our natural inclinations toward justice, fairness, protection, and morality. Moral relativism renders it impossible to stand up for moral good, as no one can truly say anything is ‘good’ or ‘bad.’

How can a person who is passionate about helping children escape and heal from sexual abuse say anything is wrong if a culture has adopted child marriage? How can a student who wants to stand up against racism hold students accountable who think differently from them?

There is really no ground to stand on any cause with any kind of passion or determination within a relative worldview if they are going to remain logically consistent.

RELATIVISM AND PURPOSE

As Kelly Monroe remarked in her book Finding God at Harvard, “Students feel safer as doubters than as believers, and as perpetual seekers rather than eventual finders.” A generation of perpetual seekers is numbing towards purpose.

Purpose has a destination and is goal-oriented. A destination is determined based on factual directions and knowing where someone is factually located. Purpose has an aim towards a standard of what ‘ought’ to be. Since relativism strips people of their ability to set standards, it inevitably strips people from having a sense of purpose or direction in this world.

Frameworks such as metaphysical relativism undermine purpose because if taken to their logical end, the metaphysical relativist cannot even determine if they exist. This is the problem, though…relativists constantly undermine themselves with their relativism.

Since existence is a foundational aspect of identity and reality, purpose would be an afterthought for someone pondering these existential questions. Personal identity is a major factor tied to purpose, and relativism would never allow someone to truly know their identity or to truly know their purpose, because it is always based on feelings and opinions that change. On top of this, aspects of metaphysical relativism are mental recipes for psychosis, derealization, depersonalization, and other disassociative disorders, which are psychological conditions that pertain to a disassociation with reality.

RELATIVISM AND SALVATION

To begin with scripture, “And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17)

In this verse, the ‘sick’ are the ones who need healing from our true sickness, sin. The physician, which is Christ Himself, is the one to heal us from our sin problem through the salvation of our souls. To come to Christ for salvation would mean the ‘sick’ person would need to acknowledge their sin and come to Christ for salvation. For the sinner to know they have a sin problem, they must agree with the objective standards of morality that God has given to mankind to realize they have broken every single law.

The moral relativist looks at God’s laws and says, “Maybe for you, maybe for that culture, maybe for that time… but maybe not for me.”

The moral relativist would further say to God or to anyone who holds them accountable to God’s laws, “Who are you to judge? My truth says this is good. It makes me feel good; it must be good.”

This thinking and heart attitude will prevent people from seeing their spiritual danger, acknowledging their sin problem, or any kind of accountability that doesn’t serve their selfish desires and motives.  

If good and evil do not truly exist, then we are not accountable to God, and Christ did not need to die because salvation is, therefore, not needed.

For example, a person who has spent the last 10 years of their life addicted to drugs has stolen from family members, neglected their children, and given their body for sex to feed their addiction.

I have heard it time and time again, the secular relativist tells them as they enter treatment, “You have a disease; this is not a moral issue,” primarily because the mental health industry has no right to ‘judge’ and cannot make ‘moral judgments’ about behavior. This person has the opportunity to repent of their sins, receive forgiveness, and come to Christ. Instead, they are fed a lie that they have a disease and have not morally failed; therefore, there is no need to seek forgiveness.

Christians who have attempted to evangelize in the West will have encountered this type of conversation at some point. On one hand, Christians have compromised the clarity of Scripture for the sake of acceptance and to avoid conflict.

On the other hand, Christians have indulged in the cultural practice of vilifying those with whom they disagree (Murray, 2018).

This can be a frustrating conversation, but it will require patience to navigate through the illogical mazes that have been sown and accepted into the minds of many postmodern Westerners. Ultimately, relativism has corrupted the true understanding of goodness, purpose, and salvation.

Instead of holding relativism in its rightful place (aesthetics and opinions), it has been allowed to be applied to truth, reality, knowledge, and morality, which is a grave danger to the human soul, human connection, and psyche.

It is no mistake that the scriptures tell us, “And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)