Sathfilms

Absolutely Relative: The Paradox of the Declaration of Relative Truth « Minds 2 Mentes

Thank you for giving me the link to your blog, and the post above which was in response to this post which talked about religion for the sake of meaning, as opposed to escapedmentalpatient’s thought where religion is belief for belief’s sake.

I’ve only briefly glanced over some of the posts on your blog but I did read the post that I have linked above, about relative truth, but I’ll be sure to have a more closer read of other posts when time allows it.

Regarding relative truth, I’ve previously had some conversations about the very same idea, with a Christian friend of mine. She couldn’t understand how I could believe that more than one path can lead to God (or a higher power) and still think Christianity can be one of these paths, because, in the Bible, Jesus said that the only way to God is through him. I also read the Case For Faith, and the chapter with the Ravi Zacharias interview, where he talked about relative truth and how Christianity is the only true way, and thus there could be no other. The section of that chapter regarding Mahatma Gandhi and whether or not he’d go to Heaven was also quite interesting, but unfortunately I am not really that impressed by any arguments made by Zacharias, although I’m sure he must be an expert on these matters. Furthermore, his representation of a kind of pop-culture-Buddhism was offensive even if it was just discussing the popularity of the “Buddhist” way of life in the United States today. His views are very absolute, and that’s where my issues start.

I’m sure Ravi Zacharias has had some amazing experiences in his younger years, however I can never appreciate absoluteness in any argument with regards to the four questions that he said need answering: that of origin, meaning, morality and destiny. It must be wonderful that he has it all worked out and that he has the faith to believe that the bible is inerrant and the absolute word of God. To me, this argument about relative truth and absolute truth is useless. You are correct in saying that if one believes that the bible is the absolutely 100% correct and that it all is the word of God, they cannot also believe that another way to God or salvation can be possible or correct. I do not believe any religion is perfect, and I also believe it is down to the individual to determine a path based on their learning, questioning and their understanding of why they exist. I would be referring to a relative truth or truths, only if I say that each religion is devoid of error or inaccuracies, or if I said that a belief in the religion makes it true merely because it is a true belief of that person. Yet, I do feel however that most, if not all, the aims of various religions are similar in nature; and obviously that can be criticised as a very superficial comparison. As I’ve written, I only respect religion because people can find themselves meaning, a reason to live and help others, through it and the direction and guidelines it can give - and in my opinion, and absoluteness is harmful. There is no way that I believe a Christian, Hindu, Islam or any view, to be true - perhaps an essence of truth, but not “truth” in it’s absoluteness. I do not believe that every way is wholly correct, and I do not say any way is wholly wrong. I have no right, or credentials to say as such.  I cannot talk in absolutes because I don’t know what these absolutes are; and let me quote Gandhi, who according to Zacharias, might be in Hell right now. From The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His Writing on His Life, Work, and Ideas, edited by Louis Fischer:

“[Gandhi liked the sweet Christian hymns and many of the Christians he met. But he could not regard Christianity as the perfect religion or the greatest religion.] …It was impossible for me to believe that I could go to heaven or attain salvation only by becoming a Christian… I could accept Jesus as a martyr, and embodiment of sacrifice and a divine teacher, but not as the most perfect man ever born… The pious lives of Christians did not give me anything that the lives of men of other faiths had failed to give. I had seen in other lives the same reformation that I had heard among Christians. Philosophically there was nothing extraordinary in Christian principles… Thus, if I could not accept Christianity either as a perfect or the greatest religion, neither was I then convinced of Hinduism’s being such. Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be part of Hinduism, it could be but a rotten part or an excrescence. I could not understand the [reason for] a multitude of sects and castes. What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas [Hindu scripture] were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran?”

So, when a Christian says to me, that he or she believes that Christianity is the only way to God, I understand that that person has that belief, but in no way do I believe that it is wholly truth. I am not saying Christianity is true because that person believes it, just as I am not saying that Hinduism is true because another person completely beleives that. I find the argument of relative and absolute truths a waste of my time.

How about a spherical truth? Why not! Perhaps all religions aim to reach the centre of the sphere where truth may reside - they represent a hopeful interpretation of what this truth might actually be. Maybe religion is a misunderstanding of a truth that is amazingly difficult to define without an absolute understanding which needs to be achieved in a way that also is difficult or impossible to define without experiencing it. Who knows, but the spherical truth, or that a sphere existing around the truth is how I see religions and their instructions on how to live life.

Nonetheless, It’s a very interesting post regarding relative truth and absolute truth and the paradox therein. I can also understand Zacharias’ distaste for the statement “truth is relative,” however, with as many flaws as each religion has, I don’t think anyone can talk in absolutes especially when they are referring to a religion. So, as long as religion is one of the reasons some people have for a  meaning to live, to help, and so on, I’m happy for them, because it gives those people and the people who’s lives they effect, more time to find truth whilst facilitating the truth, until we reach it in the end.

Why do you find discussion about absolute and relative truth to be useless?

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Stay tuned into my blog the next couple of days if you like, because I am going to be writing about a couple of these things.

I have also previously written about Ravi Zacharias’ points of origins, meaning, morality and destiny here: ( http://minds2mentes.wordpress.com/2007/03/07/a-coherent-worldview/ )

Comment by Krista Dominguez May 29, 2007 @ 2:00 pm

Reply

[...] the exclusive way, the only way, to God.  I will be addressing some of the things discussed in this response to this post of mine from last [...]

Pingback by The Exclusiveness of Christ - Part 1 « Minds 2 Mentes May 29, 2007 @ 2:25 pm

Reply

[...] are Irrelevant In response to the comment left on my post, here, and the post on Minds 2Mentes titled, “The Exclusiveness of Christ - [...]

Pingback by Absolutes are Irrelevant « Sathfilms May 30, 2007 @ 4:57 am

Reply

[...] author of this blog, Krista posted the above link to her blog in a comment here regarding my reference to Zacharias and the four basic questions of life. On her post, this [...]

Pingback by We don't have all the answers « Sathfilms May 31, 2007 @ 10:12 am

Reply