i was just reading an article in macleans yesterday that says the muslims are what we need to be worried about... i believe the title was 'the future is muslim'... it talked about how the number of muslims in the world is huge, and they are set to become dominant as the west is 'old and weak'.

it was an interesting article, and i'd say that i'd have to go with macleans on this one.

yeah... whatever.

Hi. This is a very interesting topic. I think that relativism has really become a crucial problem for society, the Church and faith. I agree with aweredersome. Relativism seems content to resign itself to indifference when faced with the incomprehensible nature of truth.
Relativism tries to identify itself as being the only approach for a society that wishes to be free and tolerant. There is no way that a healthy society can be sustained on the idea of relativism. No matter what, there are things which are evil, and can never become good, and also things which are good that can never become evil. Society has gotten to the point where nothing is viewed as being absolute, and so, as a result, the concept of Truth is diluted. Instead of comparing ones actions to an ultimate good, the relativist society has as its standard the changing desires and whims of the self.
While not a Roman Catholic, I think that the Holy Father expressed this idea very well. He said that instead of providing freedom and tolerance, relativism separates people from one another, allowing their own ego to enslave and imprison them.

when you say holy father, are you talking about pope benedict???

and what does '...instead of providing freedom and tolerance, relativism separates people from one another, allowing their own ego to enslave and imprison them.' mean??

Just to clarify what I posted earlier, I was paraphrasing the words of Pope Benedict XVI. What I think he is getting at is that relativism makes one captive to his own self. In much of western society today, there is a notion that the majority rules. It is reasonable. therefore, in such a context, that the beliefs and norms of society will change as the views of the majority change. As a result, in order to remain a part of the majority, one must adopt an attitude of indifference and change his views to fit society - as if the worst thing one could do is make a stand. The relatvism, then, that claims to be tolerant and freeing, can ultimately be quite restrictive. In a culture such as this, someone who holds to the idea of an absolute truth which is unchanging, is seen to be a ridgid fundamentalist and not a modern person.

Aweredersome wrote: "Basically, relativism is the belief that everything is right essentially. It degrades absolute truth, and the existence of something that is right, or wrong."

EZ Answer: Today's relativism derives from an over-simplified understanding of social constructivism. Meaning is socially constructed. The Roman Catholic Church may disagree, but a cohesive Christian moral theology or ethic can be constructed from a post-structuralist epistemology.

This is, indeed, a great topic. While I grew up very comfortable with the idea of there being an absolute truth, I also grew up assuming that I knew what that truth was. The older I get, however, the more I realize that absolutism, in its most severe form, can be just as dangerous as some of the descriptions of relativism that I've read.

I was having a conversation with a colleague the other day and we were having a conversation about something of an ethical nature. The conversation, for me, took a turn when I was told, "Yes, but we have been given the truth."

I think that the pursuit of truth is a major thread in my life. I think, howver, that I'm further away from it now than I ever was. I also think that a healthy dose of relativist thinking keeps my mind open. It allows me to recognize and remember that, as human beings, we are meaning-makers, and that we are constantly constructing responses and ideas about the world around us. I believe that it is an ongoing process.

Finally, I believe that we have to step back from some of our strongly held beliefs and examine others' ideas of the truths that they have discovered. I'm not sure who actually said it but I am totally inspired by the idea: "I'm not sure who discovered water, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a fish."

hhhmmmm... thank you for your response, deogratis!!

but i guess i'm having trouble seeing how being open to change is somehow restrictive?? to me, it seems that believing that there is some unchanging truth out there is far more restrictive...

i'm thinking, for example, that if we believed that 'the earth is flat' was some unchanging truth, then you would actually FIGHT the information that didnt' follow your beliefs. whereas, if you are open to the thought that what you believe to be the truth RIGHT NOW is not written in stone, then when the astronauts came back and showed pictures, you would be able to change your beliefs to encompass this new information.

does that make any sense??

Indeed it does. Paul Tillich expressed the Protestant Principle this way: God is infinite, we are not. Therefore it is impossible for one of us to claim to have a complete knowledge of God. There is always an element of doubt in in our faith, an element of unknowing in our understanding. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, there are things we know we don't know. And that is the beginning of wisdom. Religion is the persistent pursuit of wisdom, the deeper understanding. It is not a claim on having a monopoly on the truth.

I'm a university student. And day after day I hear people saying that 'all truth is relative'. What I should do is ask them, "Ok, is that true?" The statement that there is no truth is in itself a truth claim, which is universal and objective.
I think relativism is, in many ways, nihilisms little brother. Nihilism being the idea that there is no God, no hope, and the only absolute truth is that fate will catch up to us one day and we will die. If there is no God, no hope, the only truth that has value is the one you hold.

Sighsnootles. Your example actually demonstrates that truth is independent of our beliefs and is discovered rather than decided upon. The earth was once believed to be flat, what we have discovered is that it is in fact a globe This is a universal truth, independent of what we may choose to believe or how open to the concept of flat earthism we may be.

brother: Platonic allegory of the cave can easily be interpreted as relative truth, albeit a recursive one.

I consider the whole rise of 'relativist thought' or relativism thought in this day an age as part of an overarching process that's necessary step towards the overall survival of the human species on a global scale, it's part of a 'reordering' so to speak and is coming about as a result of an overall process of globalization, that the world as a whole is going through today,

Please bare with me as I try to explain. Human history so far is largely about one culture of thought or group or entity fighting or exacting domination over another group of people or culture of thought. Each being sure that they bear the knowledge of 'truth' whether in the realms of religion, politics, economics, social structure or pretty much anything. Might makes right tends to be the name of the game. We're right, you're wrong.

In the past, namely do to the limitations of technology whether in the area of weaponry, communication technology and even transportation technology conflicts between the sides of 'rightness' have been largely contained to specific regions.
That simply isn't the case anymore and such conflicts between different sides of 'right' and 'truth' can now quite literally destroy every living being on the planet if they so desired. Add in the issues around ecological problems, which act beyond any human made borders and human made culture and beyond beliefs of 'right' and 'wrong' and we've got a situation where as human beings we are being slowly forced to recognize that whether we like it or not we are all connected with each other.

So what does 'relatvist' thought mean at it's root. It's a recognition that okay, maybe we, whether individuals or a society, a culture as a relgious group don't hold the supreme answer to 'absolute' truth. We think perhaps we have a good idea....but it opens the door for dialogue...for listening...for seeing more, then perhaps we've see or know before. I don't think for a moment that it's about giving up the search for 'absolutes' but expanding that search to another level...and in the case of the world today a necessary exercise.

Take for example Canada's own history of colonization. To generalize a "Western European ethic" came into conflict and quite literally imposed on millions of other humans who held and still do to a large extent a different way of 'doing' and 'seeing' the world. This imposition was a direct result of feeling that 'This way is the right way" and must be spread. It is the force or energy behind the concept of "Empire". Something that has been repeated over and over again in the course of human history. It's important to recognize the religious and spiritual component contained in this history. It was largely able to proceed as it did because of the 'rightness' of ones cultures understanding of religious 'truths' against those on the outsides whose 'spiritual' truths did not match and they were devalued to the state of being only 'savages' and 'heathens '( meaning those without God, or more rightly OUR understanding of God) and therefore what happened was justified.

I will put forth the notion that as a society in general we no longer recognize that 'rightness' of this devaluing or in those actions...or at least not as much as we used too. This is a result of relativist thought...meaning the recognition that other cultures or people have some inherent value and that this way of thinking that was once 'absolute' wasn't quite as absolute as was once thought. Right now we are in a process of trying to reorder the relationships and destruction that's been created by this type of absolute thinking and in order to do so there has to be some sort of relativist thought involved.
And I would also like to postulate that in this case, namely the door that relativism has opened has already led to a better understanding of what is 'true', namely that all humans have a certain inherent value. A basic notion that I think as a whole we're still working putting into practice. This process couldn't happen without some form of relativist thought on the part of individuals or bigger groups.

True dialogue cannot happen without the 'sides' at least having some understanding that, "they might be wrong." That doesn't mean necessarily that a 'side' has to completely give up what it thinks is true...it just means that it's done in what I consider a more humble way. "This is what I think is true...but I could be wrong...lets talk about it," and inherent to this is the recognition that perhaps the door is open for the creation and understanding of even bigger truths , that perhaps can encompass more people can be found at the end of the process.