Copan, Paul. True for You, But Not for Me: Overcoming Objections to Christian Faith. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009.
Have you ever tried to explain reasons for taking Christ seriously, only to get shot down with, “Well, that’s just your opinion”?
With countless TV and radio talk shows, Web sites, blogs, and seemingly countless other media, we live in a world that increasingly levels all credentials and authority. Beliefs reduced to opinion, every perspective equally legitimate . . . it can be disheartening. Can we gain any footholds to keep open the door of conversation? Here are a few thoughts.
First, we might clarify the position taken: “Are you saying there’s no truth, only opinion? If so, how do you know this is so? Are you interested in truth if it exists? Isn’t it possible some opinions are true and others false? Why do you take this position? Why even differentiate between your opinion and mine? Why prefer one opinion over the other?” We explored these kinds of ideas earlier, but let’s look at some specifics.
The view that there is no truth, only opinion—is this true, or just an opinion? If it’s an opinion and there’s no truth, then why believe anything at all? Usually when someone dismisses your view as mere opinion, he thinks his opinion is true while yours is false. “It’s all opinion” isn’t just a matter of opinion; it’s a truth-claim.
Second, we can raise questions about obviously wicked or false ideas: What if some people feel the Rwandan genocide was okay, or that it never took place? Should the opposite opinion—the one matching up with reality—be accepted, or doesn’t it matter? Should the opinion that the earth is flat be rejected in favor of the earth’s being round? Perhaps the reason to avoid white supremacist opinions is that they’re truly evil.
Third, we should respond to this issue as we do to skepticism. If all beliefs are just a matter of opinion and no more, then our opinionarian friend has difficulties on his hands. Here ere are some of them.
This itself is a statement of knowledge; it purports to be truth, not just opinion.
Surely some opinions are more worthy of being held than others—namely, those more in touch with reality.
If the opinionarian holds his view because "people make errors all the time," he assumes that he knows what's true so he can detect error.
The opinionarian's rejection of your opinion assumes that he's utilizing logical laws to distinguish your view from his. The truth of these laws isn't in dispute.
The opinionarian adopts a position of intellectual and moral evasion, the easy way out of taking moral responsibility seriously. While this doesn’t disprove the view, it’s worth exploring; this often is the very reason for the smokescreen.
Finally, we can remind people that it’s okay to speak of true and false beliefs without being arrogant or disagreeable. Holding to the truth doesn’t entail nastiness. We’ve seen that truth is inescapable: to deny it is to acknowledge it (“it’s true that there is no truth”). We’re designed to be truth-seekers, not truth-deniers.
Summary
Find out what the opinionarian really means by reducing all truth-claims to opinion.
“It’s all a matter of opinion” is a truth-claim, the opposite of which is alleged to be false. “It’s all a matter of opinion” isn’t just a matter of opinion.
Shouldn’t some opinions be rejected for being clearly evil and/or obviously false?
Some responses to the skeptic are relevant for the opinionarian as well (see bullet points above).
Further Reading
Copan, Paul. “How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong?” Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Chapter 1.