This is a great piece by John Piper. A few exerpts;
Everyone knows in his heart that believing relativism to be true is contradictory, and everyone also knows intuitively that no one even tries to put it into practice consistently. Therefore, both philosophically and practically, it cultivates duplicity. People say they believe in it but do not think or act consistently with what they say. They are hypocrites. Relativism breeds hypocrisy and duplicity.
[…]
This is most obvious when relativists live their lives. They simply do not live them as though relativism were true. Professors play the academic game of relativism in their classes and then go home get upset when their wives don’t understand what they say. Why do they get upset? Because they know that there is an objective meaning that can be transmitted between two human beings, and we have moral obligations to grasp what is meant. No husband ever said, “Since all truth and language are relative, it does not matter how you interpret my invitation to sleep together.” Whether we write love letters or rental agreements or instructions to our children or directions for a friend or contracts or sermons or obituaries, we believe objective meaning exists in what we write, and we expect people to try to understand. And we hold them accountable (and often get upset) if they don’t.
Nobody is a relativist when their case is being tried in court and their objective innocence hangs on objective evidence. The whole system of relativism is a morally corrupting impulse toward duplicity. It is a great bluff. And what is needed in our day is for many candid children to rise up and say, “The king has no clothes on.”
[…]
The formula is simple: When relativism holds sway long enough, everyone begins to do what is right in his own eyes without any regard for submission to truth. In this atmosphere, a society begins to break down. Virtually every structure in a free society depends on a measure of integrity—that is, submission to the truth. When the chaos of relativism reaches a certain point, the people will welcome any ruler who can bring some semblance of order and security. So a dictator steps forward and crushes the chaos with absolute control. Ironically, relativism—the great lover of unfettered freedom—destroys freedom in the end.
h/t Alice The Camel.
Ted Nancy- That’s why all these “moral relativism” threads here at SDA are basicaly “aren’t we so much better than those other people” circle jerks (which basicaly sums up this blog). You never see any real world examples just unreal definitions that are completely divorced from reality. I’ve been called a moral relativist here several times presumably because I’m an evil Darwinist that eats babies for breakfast but it’s never been clear to me what people actually mean by the term.
There is no objective, external standard for right and wrong that is valid for everyone when it comes to sexual relations between consenting adults. That is true. So what is this Piper yahoo blathering on about?
Jose,
I’m an athiest but you’re wrong on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Even Einstein’s theories on relativity (no pun on previous topics intended) are theories that are incomplete.
Evolution has far greater problems in its theory than does natural selection.
If you’re gonna add your two cents, try not to throw down pesos.
Murray,
From your post way up at the top I can assume you are against Kyoto then?
Warwick “I’m an athiest but you’re wrong on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.”
You’re falling for a common fallacy here. The two aren’t mutualy exclusive. It’s a proven fact that evolution takes place period, the what’s and wherefores is a theory. Gravity is the same way, it’s a theory but that it’s exsistence is proven fact.
Gravity is a fact – not a theory.
Relativity is a theory – not least of the reasons for which are the cosmological “fudge factor” constant and that the theory of relativity is inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics. Since these two sets of theories (the very big and the very small) have inconsistencies that are mutually exclusive, they both can’t be right but they are the scientific world’s best estimate of the way it is until someone figures it out. It’s what Hawkins calls the “grand unifying theory” which hasn’t been penned yet cause no one knows what it is.
Evolution is not fact and that isn’t a fallacy. Natural selection has more of a scientific basis. You can say that parts of it have been proven but others not. Evolution is unproven. You need to learn the difference between the two theories. I think you mistake one for the other.
Warwick “Gravity is a fact – not a theory.”
Well it’s both. Ever heard of something called “Gravitational Theory”.
Molecular Biology has recently conclusively proven Evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Oh and another thing, Molecular Biology has proven that the Jews planned and carried out 9/11. Don’t you watch “The View”? Rosie O’Donnel said that fire cannot melt steel. My English Prof told me it’s true. But wait, I thought there was no truth?