The Absurdity of Relativism

by Caleb Kautt

In our modern world, evolution is taught as fact in our public school system. Through this teaching, a worldview of relativism is produced, to some degree or another, in the minds of those who have been educated by this system. Relativism basically is the assumption that there are no absolutes. There are many prominent figures in our modern society that hold to this worldview, among them is Richard Dawkins.

However, it is truly ridiculous to hold to a worldview of relativism, because it is like building the foundation of one’s thinking upon gelatin. From a standpoint of logic, a relativistic worldview gives the individual no ground upon which to stand. There is no higher standard for right or wrong, except the individual’s own faulty thinking. Moral judgments are not consistent with a relativistic worldview, yet we see many who hold to such a worldview saying things like, “Stop pushing your morality on us!” To be consistent in their worldview, why is it wrong to push one’s morality upon another? In fact, to be completely consistent, they are pushing their morality on us when they tell us not to push our morality on them!

Take this quote from Richard Dawkins as an example of someone with a relativistic worldview “imposing” his morality on someone else (that someone being God):

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” 1

Let’s tear apart this rant piece by piece.

1). “Unjust”: This term implies an absolute standard by which to judge any individual’s actions. But in the relativistic worldview, who determines what is right or wrong?

2). “Unforgiving”: This term is the opposite of forgiving. However, one might ask Professor Dawkins why the characteristic of forgiving is even desirable or preferred? Why not be unforgiving? Only a biblical worldview makes sense of forgiveness (Jeremiah 31:34;

3). “Control-freak”: In the relativistic worldview, why is being a control-freak wrong? Why not be a petty tyrant ruling over all the activities of other individuals?

4). “Vindictive”: This statement in and of itself is a moral judgment. How can Dawkins even make any moral judgment and be consistent in his own worldview?

5). “Bloodthirsty”: This is a strong word that describes someone who kills just for the fun of killing. But, here again Dawkins’ relativistic worldview is not dominating his thinking, as he is making yet another moral judgment against his Maker.

6).“Ethnic-cleanser”: Dawkins uses this strong term to describe God as someone who destroys whole people-groups just as a way of showing His power. While it is true that God commanded the Israelites to destroy the pagan people groups, it was not without good reason, nor was it God’s way of just “showing off” His power. Moreover, it is, again, inconsistent on Dawkins’ part to make such a moral judgment, seeing he holds to a relativistic worldview. 7).“Misogynistic”: This adjective describes those who have hatred or mistrust of women. Here again, though, Dawkins is making yet another moral judgment. To be consistent with his worldview, who says hatred or mistrust of women is wrong or disgusting? In the evolutionary worldview, men are more highly evolved than women, so why not have a hatred or mistrust of them? Why not take advantage of them?

8). “Homophobic”: We hear this term thrown around a lot these days. It basically means, “hatred towards, or fear of, homosexuals.” This term is used primarily to deride those who denounce sodomy as ungodly and sinful. God neither hates, nor is afraid of homosexuals, nor should His followers. However, God does hate their twisting of a precious relationship that He designed to be between a man and his wife (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:21-31; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10). Besides all that, why is it wrong, in Dawkins’ worldview, to hate anybody?

9).“Racist”: In this short word is a huge amount of meaning. Dawkins is accusing God of preferring one people group over another. While a quick glance at passages like Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2; 1 Chronicles 16:13; Psalm 33:12; 105:6; 135:4; Isaiah 41:8, 9; 44:1, and numerous others, would seem to indicate that God prefers the Israelites over other people groups, this interpretation would be false. The selection of the nation of Israel was simply God’s way of bringing the Savior Jesus Christ into the world. God created the first man and woman, and from this couple came all the people groups of all the world (Acts 17:26). Moreover, a more thorough investigation into the subject will reveal that people like Rahab, a Canaanite, was accepted into the nation of Israel after she turned from her pagan idolatry (See Joshua 6:17; and Hebrews 11:31). But, who’s to say racism is wrong, if you hold to a relativistic worldview?

10). “Infanticidal”: Who is to say that killing babies is wrong? Only a worldview built upon God’s Word can consistently condemn abortion as murder. Something Dawkins willfully forgets is that evolutionary thinking has led people to believe that unborn babies are just a blob of tissue, or “are in the fish stage”, or are not fully evolved, and has led to countless millions of these precious little ones being destroyed in the womb before they have ever seen the light of day.

11). “Genocidal”: This accusation is parallel to that of “ethnic-cleanser” and can be answered in the same way. Genocide is the systematic destruction of a people group or ethnic group. Why is such activity wrong and evil? From the standpoint of evolutionary thinking, why not get rid of people groups that are deemed “unfit” or less highly evolved?

12). “Filicidal”: Filicide is the deliberate act of a parent killing his or her child. While this act is revolting and disgusting to us, who is to say it should be, from a relativistic worldview perspective? If we are to make our human laws based upon the behaviors of animals, then there should be no problem with parents killing their children. After all, the Gray Langur (a “Old World” monkey) of India, when an adult male takes over a harem, will kill all the young of the formerly dominant male.2 Dawkins is being completely inconsistent with his worldview of relativism.

13). “Pestilential”: God is described by Dawkins as being one who destroys crops and sources of food, as well as one who causes natural disasters. While God is ultimately in control of the weather and natural events, He cannot be blamed for the sinful actions of human beings which are often the reason He sends such disasters. Besides that, how can Dawkins make moral judgment against God, seeing as his worldview does not consistently allow for moral judgments to be made or even known?

14). “Megalomaniacal”: This grandiose word basically describes someone who is obsessed with showing off. But why are such actions detestable, and undesirable in others? Only a Biblical worldview accounts for the reason we are repulsed by such behavior, with the statement, “He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8; emphasis my own). Relativistic thinking cannot consistently condemn pride as sin.

15). “Sadomasochistic”: This strong adjective is used to describe someone who derives pleasure from the physical or emotional torture of others. But again, why in the evolutionary worldview is such behavior repulsive and evil?

16). “Capricous” is defined as sudden change without warning. Why is such behavior detestable and undesirable from an evolutionary worldview standpoint?

17). “Malevolent”: This word means vicious ill-will, or hatred. By what standard does Dawkins judge God, except by way of his own personal whims?

We see through this expose’ that, apart from God’s Law-book, the Bible, there is no absolute standard by which to judge anyone’s actions. In our debates with evolutionists and other relativistic worldview thinkers, we must stand our ground and never take the non-existent “neutral ground” that they would have us take. For, to concede with them that there is neutral ground is to adopt a way of thinking that says that God’s Word is not true (In Luke 11:23 Jesus said, “He who is not for Me is against Me.”), and is therefore taking a stand against Him. God’s Word is true and Truth regardless of whether or not we believe it. So it doesn’t matter if the evolutionist doesn’t believe in God, or His Word. We must speak His Word to the unbeliever in debates and discussions, making sure we do so in love (1 Peter 3:15, 16; and Ephesians 4:15). We must not answer the fool according to his folly, in that we must not accept his premise that there is neutral ground. We must answer the fool according to his folly, in that we must reflect his flawed and illogical thinking back to him, as a mirror reflects our face. It is my hope that my readers will see the absurdity of relativism, and will hold fast to the Word of God, and the God of the Word, like never before.

 

Footnotes:

1Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, pg. 31, copyright 2006, Houghton-Mifflin

2Kurt Gron, October 2008, Primate Info Net, http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/gray_langur/behav

Advertisements



%d bloggers like this: