Religious relativism maintains that one
religion can be true for one person or culture while untrue for another.
Religious beliefs are seen as simply an accident of birth and are a product
of historical happenstance and the argument goes that no single religious
belief can be universally or objectively true. Moral relativism rejects any
binding moral values for all maintaining that there is no objective ethical
right and wrong and that morality is an individual or cultural matter.
Relativism is an assault on the
truth but at the same time, it has its cultural implications. On the religious
front, persuasion is prohibited and evangelism is seen as cramming your
religion down someone’s throat. Sharing about Jesus gets people upset and
evangelism implies that you believe that your news is true and you believe that
your hearers should turn from their present way of life. Another implication
“is to be exclusivistic is seen as arrogant.” The variations of religious
beliefs in the world claiming to know something others don’t must be
wrong-headed and erroneous. Another implication is that tolerance is the
cardinal virtue implying that someone is wrong sounds terribly intolerant when
tolerance popularity is defined as (being open or accepting of all ideas). For
example, what homosexual activists call tolerance is an unconditional
acceptance of their lifestyle as legitimate and right. A final implication of
relativism perhaps best explains how disputes over truth can begin to feel like
a war. “Absent the possibility of truth, power rules the day.” i.e.; once the truth
is whatever we say it is, asserting power over others is a natural next step.
On the surface level, relativism sounds
relaxed and easy-going. When we think through its implications and apply them
rigorously to life, we see the pitfalls of being so accommodative.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Copan, Paul. True
for You But Not for Me. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment