The 'absolute' to 'relative' Shift
Modern Church History Essay 2020
In 17-18th century Europe, the post-Enlightenment period ushered in new ideas and ways of thinking which moved faith, ethics and culture from the ‘absolute’ category into the ‘relative’ category. Walter Truett Anderson would write that, “Never before has any civilisation openly made available to its populace such a smorgasbord of realities.” One might argue, however, that a similar situation existed in Greco-Roman culture. Relativism, in its various forms, has had a long history amongst and due to many key events, ideologies and people. During the Enlightenment, it would quickly become a philosophy of great consequence, acting as a cornerstone of both the modernist and postmodernist movements, and soon to become “the single most powerful force in shaping the mindset, attitudes and values”[1] of the modern West. Religion’s shift from the public to the private sphere has, arguably, been detrimental to the development of society as a whole, as any sense of objectivity is often now looked upon with suspicion rather than trust. It would be better for mankind to consider various truths objective, even if they may conflict between persons/cultures, than to hold an attitude of tolerance that makes light of truth altogether.
The Journey of Relativism
The shift of faith, ethics and culture into the ‘relative’ category has had a long history. The ancient philosopher and sophist, Protagoras, might be considered the first known relativist, with his statement, “Man is the measure of all things.” While this idea would appear again amongst various scholars (often theologians), our discussion will focus primarily upon the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment periods, in light of the preceding Reformation and Renaissance period. While pre-Enlightenment people were certainly more inclined to consider faith and ethics absolute, it is far too simplistic to claim that they put everything doctrine-related in an ‘absolute’ category.
Faith was mainly considered objective during the Middle Ages, however the Protestant Reformation, through its promotion of the role of conscience and personal responsibility, emphasised the idea that a person had the freedom to choose between faiths – Catholicism might not be regarded as the guard of objective truths. This stress on the primacy of the individual did not directly harm the understanding that there was an objective truth, though it did raise various epistemological questions concerning what truths mankind could know.
Humanism was a Renaissance philosophy that was central to the time period and celebrated the art, literature, language and ethics of the ancients. It also glorified the human person, and his achievements, as the unique centre figure of creation – mankind could know anything they set their mind to.
The Reformation-Renaissance period saw increasing secularism as princes began to regain temporal power,[2] classicism fostered materialism, universities became more independent, and the supremacy of the Pope began to fail. However, as many humanists were religious, the concern was to purify Christianity, not abandon it, and the church still exercised great influence over Europe. Religious violence, such as the Thirty Years War, would later be used as an example of why religion should be a matter of the private sphere, rather than of state policy.
The Enlightenment period introduced a new wave of discovery and expansion. Early globalisation meant that, as European powers sent voyages to unknown lands and people, Europeans became more aware of the diversity of thought concerning the fundamental questions of faith, ethics and culture. They began to understand that their perspective was not the only one and started to suspect that their beliefs may be historically and/or culturally determined. Being called the “Age of Reason,” this period was marked by new and numerous changes and contributions to thought – particularly in the fields of philosophy, science and politics. Gradually, the concepts of God and religion would find it difficult to have a voice in intellectual discussion. A new fervour for Biblical criticism cast doubts upon the authenticity of scripture, and a new trust in human reason would result in a denial of the supernatural or transcendent. People had confidence in the ability of reason to address any situation. The religion of the Enlightenment was progress, and its gods were science, technology and economic growth, as spoken for by the secular prophets of human rationality.
The Cartesian Revolution refers basically to the pivotal work of René Descartes, directing the big question from “what can I know?” to “how can I be certain?” It was a move toward a commitment to the idea that, to have certainty, knowledge needs to be based upon reasoning as inferred from the physical world. Descartes’ purpose was to propose a grounding for Christian dogma that was more certain than faith, and his slogan, “I think therefore I am,” was to be the cornerstone upon which he would build a theology. His work would encourage a radical scepticism that could doubt almost anything,[3] and his rationalist approach would foster the idea that man’s reason reigns as the supreme source of knowing – these would lead to a weakening of the concept of objective truth, as well as allow for a relativity grounded in reason.
In contrast to this rationalism was empiricism, which based knowledge upon sensory experience. John Locke was a key figure in developing this philosophy, arguing that the human person is born a tabula rasa, that is a blank slate. That is, we are born with no precognition or set of assumptions that frame our view of the world. Everything is learned and conditioned by experience, including our morality, faith and culture. Nothing could be known with certainty unless it was experienced. This empiricist attitude would come to fruition in the new science of the day, headed by figures such as Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, who would theorise that the world happened by chance and was simply a big machine that ran according to various laws.[4] If these laws were known and harnessed, man could better themselves. These ideas gave people license to consider a more deist approach to religion,[5] or simply reject the supernatural altogether. Instead of supposing that man’s ability to discover truth was limited, people held that reality itself was limited, and that the physical world was all there was.
We would do well to touch upon how religion was influenced by Voltaire. Seeing how religious minorities (particularly Protestants) were oppressed in France, Voltaire became a significant advocate for religious liberty and tolerance. He hated the way that Catholicism and the state had become so intertwined and absolutist, and he held that if religion were considered relative by the society, then there would be no grounds to suppress those who differ. There was a growing understanding that religion was a private matter and that, because the Church had less public power, their word no longer applied.[6]
With the supernatural out of the picture, the new hope was that ethical truths could be found in reason and science. It was argued by some that morality could be derived from nature and mankind’s timeless moral assumptions (ie “natural law”). Immanuel Kant’s deontology proposed a conservative Christian-like ethics based on reason and duty. John Stuart Mill, out of his utilitarian ethics, would invent the “harm principle.”
Friedrich Nietzsche would declare by 1882 that, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”[7] The postmodernist world would be a nihilistic one, and, born out of relativism, existentialism would gradually gain prominence. Jean-Paul Sartre would later write that, “man is condemned to be free,” which was both a liberating and terrifying concept requiring great responsibility – only by existing do we give meaning to our lives.[8] Middleton and Walsh posed a genuine question in response: how is it possible to live meaningfully if our ethical norms are simply our constructions, not given to us by either God or nature? The exploitative nature of relativism would quickly cause people to lose faith in human reason as the arbiter of truth and morality.[9]
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would be founded upon a relative and increasingly secular worldview, and new technology would wreak a level of destruction never seen before, causing people to consider that there were no answers in progress, science and technology.[10] Reason had not solved crime, poverty, violence or hunger, and the revelation found only in religion had been discarded, thus people became discouraged and believed there was no solution at all. Now, in this postmodern world, where truth is relative and matters not, people can afford to be sentimentalists.[11]
Living in a Relative World
Today, it is easy to argue that relativism reigns supreme in the West. In fact, studies conducted by the Barna Research Group since 1984 have revealed that, by a 3-to-1 margin, American adults believe that truth is always relative to the situation and person.[12] Surveys also showed that the most common basis for moral decision making was doing “whatever feels right or comfortable in that situation.” Results were only marginally different for Christian subjects. Naturally, this should be distressing for both the Church and society as a whole. John Henry Newman was one of the earliest to write against the growing relativism of the Enlightenment, and much of what he feared would in fact come to fruition. Reflecting upon the influence of liberalism in university, he would write that it, “breathed around an influence which made men of religious seriousness shrink into themselves.”[13] Relativistic culture had managed to enter into the theology of the objective, and this is indeed a matter that should be taken seriously by believers.
Newman would argue that religion should not be reduced to a private matter – it is not simply a matter of opinion, but a matter of truth. He rightly wrote, “Liberty of thought is in itself a good; but it gives an opening to false liberty.” Relativism was born out of a good intellectual exercise, until it threatened and overcame the stability that was found in the relationship between active reason and revelation.[14] Newman argued that conscience was only worthy of respect because it centred around truth and obedience to God. Similarly, relativistic reasoning is only valuable as long as it participates in a search for objectivity and an understanding of revelation. Modernism discarded the role of revelation, and postmodernism lost confidence in reason, and today we have neither.[15] Pope Benedict XVI would speak of the present as ruled by a, “dictatorship of relativism,” which takes nothing as definitive and works only to satisfy “the desires of one’s own ego.”[16]
Many Eastern religions have found prominence in the postmodern world, as, unlike Christianity, it affirms the person where they are now through the idea that humanity is good and will only get better. Eastern religion makes fewer moral demands and are understood to “bring peace” (or Zen), as opposed to the Christianity now seen as the “cause of all wars.” There is often a liberty to New Age spirituality and Eastern religion that allows people to take the divine for what they will. The common phrase, “I’m spiritual but not religious,” could be a subtle claim that, “I am my own god and I can provide myself with spiritual fulfillment.” But this restoration of the divine, in the midst of a persisting relativistic society, does nothing to solve the problem that is that people today have no reference point beyond themselves.
Relativism is promoted as tolerant; however, this is not intrinsic to the theory. Today, in fact, this tolerance is lacking, as members are pressured to live by this new religion of relativism, as though it were obligatory for mankind. In some sense, relativism was pursued because there was a desire for community and acceptance, however unity was confused for tolerance, and now that every person has their own truth, it is even more difficult to come by a unifying/common truth. Today is a post-truth society, in which, depending upon the situation, anything can be considered legitimate or illegitimate. People struggle to prove their own value in a world where such value is not innate. It is little wonder that teen suicide has doubled since 1968 and is now the leading cause of death for ages 15-24, and why drug use by sixth grade has tripled since 1975. This world is one in which instructions as simple as Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life appear ingenious in describing a common sense, deeply rooted in Christian philosophy, that was indeed common in the past.
There can be no objectivity without an appeal to something beyond the self – whether it be the “nature of things” or God Himself. In the absence of God, the principle of the “survival of the fittest” has the opportunity to rule. When man has no reference point, or absolute criterion, on which to base their moral and cultural framework, he is inclined to search for one. Os Guinness would write that, “To dismiss all religion without a thought… is a thoughtlessness bordering on contempt for our human need for meaning and belonging.” Reflecting upon Hitler’s Germany, George Orwell considered the state as a provider of purpose and truth beyond the self. He describes a yearning in the human soul to fight for something bigger and demands, “struggle and self-sacrifice.”
Though the West rejects its origins, elements of the Christian ethical conscience still remain and enable a surface-level moral consensus – it is the lifeblood of society’s moral ethos. Ben Shapiro would say that, “Judeo-Christian religion has created the foundation for the greatest civilisation in the history of mankind. You cannot take a battering ram to the foundations of civilisation and hope the superstructure stands.” Democracy works because most people, most of the time, voluntarily obey the law. To reject the link between cosmic and social order is to sabotage the validity of social order all together.[17] Through relativism, we undermine our own society.
The Book of Judges describes how the Israelites went their own way and “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Relativism has been a consistent theme in human history and philosophy and has, at times, played key roles in developing both intellectual fields and destructive ideologies. Of course, relativism itself is not innately an issue. It is only when it overstates its influence, role and scope that it can decay a society. Education seems to avoid the “your truth vs the truth” debate by asking the question of, “what can be argued?” rather than, “what is the reality?” We would do good to retrace our steps and find where we went wrong, to restore the pillars of revelation and reason, so that Christians may no longer feel compelled to say, “Jesus is a way,” rather than, “Jesus is the Way.” The shift of faith, ethics and culture into the relative category is a messy history that has been a net loss for the West.
[1] Celek and Zander, Inside the Soul of a New Generation, 51.
[2] States/princes championed the principle of cuius regio, eius religio ("Whose realm, his religion") and therefore gained a degree of spiritual power also. Protestant states did not revere papal authority.
[3] This position would be further supported by sceptic David Hume.
[4] Undermine the sense that humans stood apart from the rest of the world.
[5] William Paley’s watchmaker analogy (1802).
[6] Karl Marx, another key Enlightenment figure, regarded religion as detrimental to societal progress. Idea that industry/wealth were problems rather than solutions.
[7] First appeared in The Gay Science, though popularised in association with Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
[8] Existence precedes essence.
[9] Freudian science suggesting that humans were not wholly rational.
[10] A relativism in Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm view of scientific development (1962).
[11] In Australia, the study of STEM subjects (eg science, repeatable observation) has been promoted way above the liberal arts (eg philosophy, critical thinking). One might argue that the empirical approach to knowledge lives on alongside sentimentalism, meaning therefore that we base truth upon a combination of emotional feeling and sensory experience. Empiricism may be the modern day’s strongest tie to reality.
[12] 83% of teenagers agreed that moral truth depended upon the situation.
[13] Note A, page 116, Liberalism.
[14] Biglietto Speech.
[15] Postmodernism characterised by indifference.
[16] Pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice (2005).
[17] “There is no significant example in history… of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion.” – Will Durant, The Lessons of History, 50-51.
Middleton, J. Richard., and Brian J. Walsh. “Reality Isn't What It Used to Be.” In Truth Is Stranger Than It Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity (1995), 43, 58.
Celek, Tim, and Dieter Zander. “Anything Goes.” In Inside the Soul of a New Generation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan (1996), 51.
Reeves, Ryan M, dir. 2015. Voltaire and the Radical Enlightenment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYfVGQp_g68&ab_channel=RyanReeves.
“Americans Are Most Likely to Base Truth on Feelings.” 2002. Barna Group. February 12, 2002. https://www.barna.com/research/americans-are-most-likely-to-base-truth-on-feelings/.
Newman, John Henry. n.d. “Note A. On Page 116. Liberalism (1865).” Newman Reader - Apologia. http://newmanreader.org/works/apologia/liberalism.html.
“Chapter 33. The Cardinalate (1879).” n.d. Newman Reader - Ward's Life of Cardinal Newman - Chapter 33. http://newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter33.html.
Pope Benedict XVI, and Peter Seewald. “Dictatorship of Relativism.” Catholic Education Resource Center. 2010. https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/dictatorship-of-relativism.html.
Ratzinger, Joseph, and Marcello Pera. “Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam.” Catholic Education Resource Center. 2006. https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/without-roots-the-west-relativism-christianity-islam.html.
“It's War.” Youth for Christ. 2020. https://www.yfc.org.au/its_war.
Ormerod, Neil. "Secularisation and the “Rise” of Atheism." Australian eJournal of Theology 17 (2010), 13-22.
Guinness, Os. “For All the World.” In The Global Public Square: Religious Freedom and the Making of a World Safe for Diversity. Downers Grove, IL: IVP (2013), 32.
Schaeffer, Francis A. “The Destruction of Faith and Freedom.” In A Christian Manifesto. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books (2005), 45.
Keffer, Lindy. “Absolute Truth in a Relativistic World.” Focus on the Family. April 1, 2019. https://www.focusonthefamily.com/church/absolute-truth/.