Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth - Women in Apologetics (2023)

By Amy Davison

what is true This age-old question continues to be asked today, which is why we, as Christian apologists, must answer it...

In this month's edition of the WIA newsletter, we're going “back to basics” to reiterate some basic excuses. I don't know about you, but I'm always grateful when teachers have a review day. I always felt it brought something up that I missed on the first run, or updated an issue that started to come back into mental focus.

Today, the subject of truth is one that we must keep "ready for mission."[1]This is not just because the truth is under heavy attack in our culture, but because when we don't have the truth as a basis (or encourage our friends and family to have it), we have all the other apologetic issues and the gospel itself becomes one. problem. matter of preference. So let's take a few minutes and look at absolute versus relative truth.

absolute truth

Absolute truths are statements or beliefs that are true for all people, at all times and in all situations, and cannot be changed. These can come in moral and neutral forms such as: it's wrong to torment/kill/steal kittens for fun, 4 × 6 = 24, laws of logic, there are no square circles, the nature of God and this gospel are all absolutely true.

You will find that each of these[2]they were discovered, not invented, which means they are recognizable unlike the skeptic. There are such truths"independent of the knower and his consciousness", meaning that the truth

"The earth was before man was" was true even when there was no one to imagine it. They also have the necessary quality of being grounded in an omnipotent, omniscient, and uncaused First Cause. Why? Because they exist with or without humans. These truths come from somewhere, or more specifically from someone. Although absolute truth and objective truth are often used interchangeably, we must be careful to emphasize an important difference that arises when it comes to moral values.

For example, let's take the statement:lying is wrong.

At first glance, this appears to be absolutely true. If you're a parent, this is probably how you've shared it with your kids, but let's put it in context. Let's say the only thing standing between a Jewish family in hiding and Auschwitz is their ability to forge an identity so they can escape. Is it still true that lying is absolutely wrong?

The answer is obviously no. Hence the important distinction: if there was a lieabsolutewrong, you would be forced to extradite the family even if they were killed.

These are the moral truthsaim, rather than absolutes, as they allow for varied applications based on context rather than our preferences.[3]This may sound like we are falling into relativism, but saying that an objective truth is relative in application is different from the philosophical stance of relativism. It just means that they can be applied differently depending on the circumstances, not that they are based on our subjective opinions (subjectivism).[4]

relativism

If you've been watching the news lately, you've no doubt noticed that the postmodern movement is opposed to absolute truth:relativism. Relativism is the idea that truth is a socially or culturally agreed upon set of beliefs. This means that statements like "honor killings are okay" or "putting dogs down a flight of stairs is wrong" are just constructs of one's culture or society or, to narrow the scope a bit, are a matter of opinion, i.e. , subjectivism.[5]

No belief is more right or wrong than another, and trying to argue as such is seen as repressive or bigoted.[6]By denying the existence of objective truths, postmoderns offered the equivalent of "everybody's a winner!" in the form of a cautious "Everybody's right!"[7]That's partly why it's so attractive.

If truth is subjective, then each person is his own lawgiver, judge, and jury. Every culture, every practice, every belief plays on the same subjective playing field. There is no longer an objective standard because we no longer have an objective legislator, and without an objective standard, as the philosopher A.J. Ayer says, "Sheer public opinion...an emotional preference."

That sounds like the times we live in, doesn't it? We are already seeing the consequences of this belief in our nation, and they are not pretty.

Fortunately, this view collapses because it does not adhere to the absolute rules of logic, which it claims do not exist. It cannot be "absolutely" true that my truth and the exact opposite of my truth are equally true, because that violates the law of inconsistency. Furthermore, not all truth can be subjective, because this statement is not itself subjective! Perhaps one of the most ironic implications of relativism is that if people really believed in it, they couldn't argue that everyone should see things that way. Once they did that, they would take the position that relativism is objectively better than what the other person believes. Thus, relativism is self-defeating.[8]

Why should we defend the existence of truth

Apologetics is a God-honoring tool to provide arguments and evidence in defense of the gospel,[9]but what is the point if the Gospel is not less true than any other belief? Evangelistic ministries to Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and unbelievers would be unnecessary. Presentations for Intelligent Design would be useless, evidence for the Resurrection unnecessary, unplanned corroboration among the books of the Bible superfluous. Apologetics would be totally irrelevant outside of a personal desire to reaffirm one's beliefs.

Sadly, many Christians have unwittingly allowed relativism and subjectivism to invade their spiritual lives. I saw this firsthand during an apology class for high school students at a Christian private school I was enrolled in.

The class was given a worksheet explaining how they were going to share the gospel with an unbelieving friend. As the class progressed, I was surprised to find that each group had no idea how to answer the question, "I mean, Christianity is true for me, but it might not be true for them, and that's inside." right?" One girl asked another.

Ten minutes later, the class was still debating what seemed like a simple question. My heart broke for her.[10]Therefore, we must understand and resist the undermining of the truth. Without it we will have difficulty conveying the majesty of the gospel and will be unable to affirm the divinity of Christ.[11]for the person who says that christianity is only truefor you.[12]

[1]A common expression used throughout my military career to mean ready to enlist at any time.

[2]And all unlisted.

[3]This is what distinguishes objectivity from subjectivism. Subjectivism is based on personal preferences and opinions, while objectivity is based on the existence of an objective standard.

[4] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/objective-or-absolute-moral-values/The absolute is opposed to the relative, while the objective is opposed to the subjective.

[5]subjectivists of

[6]Did you notice the fatal flaw in that line of reasoning? We'll get to that soon.

[7]Though they rarely practice what they preach unless you agree with them.

[8]Indeed, even arguing that objective truth exists is not seen as an act of aggression or an attempt at repression. It got so bad that apologist Abdu Murray argues that we have transitioned from a postmodern culture to a post-truth culture, where feelings are the basis of truth, not what exists in reality.

[9]Jesus argued with the Pharisees about the truth of Scripture, He provided evidence of His deity through miracles, and Paul and the disciples used this evidence to defend the rationality of the gospel.

[10]I ended up canceling the remainder of the class so we could cover this same subject. They were so eager to understand this topic better. Desiring the truth is probably a better description.

[11]João 14:16.

[12]This subject is beautifully addressed in the new book Mama Bear Apologetics. Make sure you get your hands on one!

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed by individuals associated with this service or on our platforms do not necessarily represent the views of Women in Apologetics, Inc.