Frontline: Oklahoma City, OK > "That's true for you, but not for me."

Copan, Paul. True for You, But Not for Me: Overcoming Objections to Christian Faith. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009.

On its surface, relativism sounds relaxed and easygoing. Only when we think through its implications and apply them rigorously to life do we see the pitfalls of being so “accommodating.” As Alister McGrath (b. 1953) writes,

It is utterly wrongheaded to say that something is “true for you but not for me.” For example, what if I think fascism is true and you think liberal democracy is equally true? Should the fascist’s repression be tolerated by the believer in liberal democracy? If not, on what grounds? Why not permit Stalinism or Satanism or Nazism? Without criteria to determine truth, this relativism fails miserably.

Most of us don’t want to live in that world. And relativism isn’t just offensive emotionally. It also doesn’t hang together logically; as a worldview it can’t be sustained. To get along, one has to be a selective relativist.

Self-Contradiction

In Titus 1:12, Paul gives some advice to his “son in the faith,” who is ministering to the people of Crete. Titus is in the thick of hostile ideas; in describing the antagonists, Paul quotes the Cretan philosopher-seer Epimenides (sixth century BC):

Even one of their own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”

You catch the irony: If all Cretans are liars, can Epimenides himself really be trusted?

There’s a familial resemblance between Epimenides’ statement and relativism. Epimenides purports to speak the truth about the inhabitants of Crete, yet some will charge him with contradiction: He’s telling the truth about himself by calling himself a liar. (It’s like the command “Don’t believe a word I say.”) Likewise, relativism claims to speak universal truth about at least one thing—namely, that someone’s “truth” can be someone else’s falsehood—and thus contradicts itself by claiming nothing is true or false. Why believe the relativist if he has no truth to utter?

Relativist claims are like saying, “I can’t speak a word of English” or “All generalizations are false.” Our most basic reply to the relativist is that his statements are self-contradictory. They’re self-undermining; they self-destruct. The relativist falsifies his own system by such self-referential statements as “Everyone’s beliefs are true or false only relative to himself.” If claims are only true for the speaker, then his claims are only true for himself, and it’s difficult to see why they should matter to the rest of us.

To be consistent, the relativist must say, “Nothing is objectively true—including my own position. So you’re free to accept my view or reject it.” Normally, when the relativist says, “Everything is relative,” he expects his hearers to believe his statement and embrace his view of reality. And he expects his statement to pertain to all statements except his own.

Self-Exception

Of course, the relativist doesn’t likely believe his relativistic position is true simply for himself. Thus, he commits a second error—the self-excepting fallacy—by claiming a statement holds true only for everyone else. Oddly, the relativist is unwilling to relativize his own relativism, just as he is unwilling to generalize his relativism (since he makes himself an exception).

It’s fair to point out to him that statements like “That’s true for you, but not for me” are both self-contradictory (which means they aren’t meaningful; they don’t make sense) and guilty of the self-excepting fallacy. However, while doing so often has shut the door on further conversation, it need not! Again, relationships built on respect are important. If a true-for-you-er is willing to listen, an appropriate response might be: “You assume the following statement is universally true: ‘Something can be true for one person and not for another.’ But you believe it applies to everyone’s beliefs except yours. If your statement is only true for you, then I see no reason to think it applies to me.”

Relativism fails on a crucial test of internal consistency. “Something can be true for one person but false for another” fails to meet its own criterion for truth. Think about it: While a worldview can be internally consistent or logical yet still be false, no worldview can be true if it contradicts itself.

A relativist might attempt to avoid the charge of self-contradiction by conceding, “Everything is relative except this statement (which is absolute).” Once he admits this, though, he’s given away the store. We could ask, “Why just this one exception? Why can’t there be two or three more such sweeping truths?” Possibly he’ll reply, “Because humans tend to make mistakes, and there are too many differences to know which are right and which are wrong. So this conclusion is safe.”

How is our “sort-of relativist” inconsistent?

He arbitrarily sets down this one absolute—and absolutely no more.
He knows humans always make mistakes (excluding himself, apparently).
If he is able to detect many mistakes and errors, he presumably knows many true things in order to achieve this detection.
He believes that laws of logic are universally binding—which is why he wants to avoid contradiction.
He assumes his mind is in working order, enabling him to detect errors.

And the list of presumed truths goes on.

The relativist idea that “it’s just a paradox you have to live with” (as opposed to a contradiction) is interesting; even the relativist is concerned about avoiding contradiction. He believes logical laws are absolute, and so he wants to avoid being guilty of sloppy thinking. But isn’t “his logic” just “true for him”?

Here’s the difference between paradox and contradiction. A paradox involves tensions or categories not easily unified or resolved. A contradiction renders itself incoherent (e.g., the truth that there is no truth). Such evasions and distortions don’t form a rationally serious argument.

However, keep in mind that self-ascribed relativists aren’t interested in internal inconsistencies, which they may simply shrug off. Hopefully, through relationships and modeling authentically lived lives, we can connect with them on deeper levels, both by shining light on truth and by contrasting it with falsehood. I know plenty of people who have abandoned relativism because it’s a half-baked existence that flies in the face of how we were designed to live—namely, as truth-pursuers and goodness-seekers.

Relativism . . . or Rights?

In addition, the relativist might benefit from being informed, graciously, that his paradigm is only a part-time occupation, for, again, one has to be a selective relativist to make it in this world. He’s counting on his belongings not being stolen, his Jaguar not having a sledgehammer taken to it. Sure, “it’s all relative” when it comes to chastity or income-tax reporting. But what if someone violates his rights?

We know the answer, and an angry relativist is a strange phenomenon. Why get uptight if another person is intolerant? After all, maybe don’t exist. A relativist living under the Taliban’s tyranny won’t be saying, “Your rules are true for you, but not for me.” He’ll know his rights are being violated. Oppressors have a knack for de-relativizing relativists.

Consider an additional realm of selectivity—fixed facts that don’t really affect one’s life. On the one hand, relativists don’t question the truth of Paris’s being in France, of yesterday’s baseball scores, or of the law of gravity’s relevance. On the other hand, in areas that personally matter, depending on what’s true about them—God’s existence, a moral standard, and so on—these are where people decide facts are relative.

Nevertheless, whether or not we admit it, our lives rely heavily on the convictions that truth exists and that truth matters. All of us implicitly trust that certain things are.

Summary

If my belief is only true for me, why isn’t your belief only true for you? Aren’t you saying you want me to believe the same thing you do?
If you say no belief is true for everyone, you’re making a universal claim that relativism is true and absolutism is false.
You can’t in the same breath say, “Nothing is universally true” and “My view is universally true.” Relativism falsifies itself.
The relativist applies his view to everyone but himself (“self-excepting fallacy”).
“Relativists” who say there’s just one absolute—that everything else is relative—must address a host of inconsistencies (e.g., arbitrariness, knowing that people make errors, confidence in the universally true laws of logic).
Relativists who call their view paradoxical presuppose the absoluteness of logic. They don’t want to be guilty of contradiction.
Relativists are selective, picking and choosing when “it’s all relative” and when it’s time to “stand up for rights.”
Relativists don’t question many certain truths—usually just God/morality issues.
Living life depends on belief in truth.

Self-Contradiction

Self-Exception

Relativism . . . or Rights?

Summary

Further Reading