The New Pope and 'Relativism'  

Just been reading this article about how the new Pope decries what he describes as 'Relativism'.

Here's some snippets so we know what he's talking about:


There's more but that's enough for a discussion. The thinking and aware observer will quickly see that the term 'relativism' has been coined to downgrade something - to demonise it in fact and indeed, that is implicit (and imo the main purpose) in the article itself.

We can tell this because of the immediate linking with the word 'liberals' which is a catch-all category used only by the people who imagine themselves the opposite of what they think liberal means.

But that is not the worst of it: the position described (and shown in a bad light AND in a manner which is termed to suggest there can be no doubt about this) is essentially the position of any sane thinking person.

Every logical thinker knows that one man's meat is another man's poison but here it is presented as being an established heterodox concept. This is not only disingenuous, it is a lie.

But I'm more interested in who is lying and what is the agenda. So far we have Howard on the anti-relativism bandwagon - he is hardly worthy of comment except to note that he is an extreme right wing xenophobe and a hypocrite to boot as he himself was an immigrant. Now we have the Pope - a surprising choice because of his age and that implies he had something else going for him theologically (in their own terms obviously - not being a relativist myself I can understand this and still condemn it) - that thing is the anti-realtivism meme.

This is nothing new, it is the foundation of all fascism and fundamentalist extremism and we're not only sleepwalking into it (we did that for the last four years) now we're actually celebrating it.

Bad moon rising......

Yes, It is worrying. I don't want to bring up any historical analogies but as a culture we are always saying we must learn from the past - when are we actually going to start ?

Sometimes it seems like we have not progressed at all - or maybe we are regressing quickly.

But it doesn't make any sense. That's the problem. It's a philosophical blind alley.

Philosophically there [i]may[/b] be an absolute but the Church has failed to prove they are it (as has everyone else who's tried) and the evidence is overwhelming that they are not.

They cannot claim primacy as there are other worthy and potentially valid systems preceding them. They derive their existence largely from one of these.

They cannot claim uniqueness as they borrowed extensively from other traditions.

They cannot base it on anything but an absolute belief they are right and consequently that others are wrong. That's bigotry.

Yes - but only because that is reducing things to black and white terms.

I am suggesting that the context within which it is being pressed into service is a newly developed one: viz, as the antithesis of what wingers obsess most about 'liberalism'.

It was never previously imbued with the meaning, ergo it is new.


I think I made it clear enough.


No problems - now try to do it on your own


If you are going to casually throw around statements like this then you are going to be asked for evidence. I just point this out for your own benefit - it's not that I expect you to lay out an argument or anything.

The relativist position is merely an open-minded position as opposed to a closed-minded one. As I said above (because I am open minded) the closed position may be right. It's just that in the whole of human history no-one who subscribes to it has ever produced a single iota of evidence.

They prefer to say things like you did above and plug up their ears if anyone bothers to reply.


We aren't discussing that. we are discussing why some people claim to have a monopoly on truth and why they oppose and deride anyone who thinks differently without basing it on objective evidence. in short, it is the doctrine of "I believe this so it must be true for all people, at all times because I believe it and I consequently have the right to enforce this belief because I have just proved it is true."

Your post is a classic text-book example of it.

Ok, let me state it more clearly.

1) There may or may not be absolutes.

2) In our present cosmological position in the universe we cannot know this.

3) The things we have been traditionally told are absolutes are demonstrably not.

That is my position in this thread. I am open-minded as I say and if you can provide an example of a moral (that is what we are talking about after all) absolute that cannot be countered by anyone here I will admit I was wrong and agree with your position.

If you cannot, then it means your example is a belief and therefore not an absolute. It may even be right - which I have admitted. My criticism is of people at the opposing end who do not and cannot concede that their opponents may be right.

That is fundamentalism. It is the threat we are facing whether it comes in Islamic or Christian guise or anything else, and we have to do something about it before it does something about us (*by 'us' I mean those of us not subscribing to its tenets).

Ok, one at a time:

Rape: from the Bible (my bolds):




That last one condones murder as well as rape. Even from a non-Biblical perspective there have been many societies that regard rape as a fringe benefit of victory over a conquered people. It is not therefore an absolute.

Incest: The Pharoanic Egyptians not only believed and practiced incest but believed it a sacred duty. there are several other societies that held equivalent beliefs and the Classical Greek myths likewise do not hold the subject as a taboo. Nor do many 'primitive' tribes. I will resist the temptation to ask where Cain got his wife. This is also not an absolute.

Stealing: as Proudhon said, property is theft. Boiled down this means that the definition is in question: Bush could be in some views stealing Iraqi oil for example though some would approve. Saddam stole the people's wealth - though he and his cohorts approved. Intelligence agencies steal info all the time - this is expected and approved of. Even, I suspect, by you. This is also not an absolute.

Lying? Deception? Fraud?: again, we're with definitions. Governments have lied and then gone on to lie about lying. This is approved of. People are lauded as heroes if they lie to 'save their country' or 'mislead the enemy'. Even to save one's life it is generally regarded as permissable. Similarly with deception and fraud - it is rampant throughout the world as we speak and the countries engaged in it are in many cases regarded as 'honest', 'civilized' and 'God -fearing'. This is not an absolute either.

Murder: see OT passages above and God's conduct to his 'enemies' elsewhere in that book. Also look at murder under other names - war for example. If you prefer a civilization based on murder then perhaps try the Aztecs though there are many others based on ritual human sacrifice.

Breaking promises/vows: there are many societies where this is permissable if one's life is in danger. That's all it takes to be not an absolute - one get out clause, just one.

And I haven't even started on the metaphysical ramifications - for example how if I kill some old granny with an axe, that could possibly transgress an absolute in terms of a planet that is billions of years old but which itself is only a nanosecond in the galaxy, itself an atom in an atom in an atom of a split-second of the universe's existence. A universe which may well be an atom of something else....and on and on....

That's what you're dealing with when you talk of absolutes - as said, there probably are some, almost certainly are, but we aren't in a position to know what they are - nor does it matter to us.

No.

I am saying that what you believe is wrong and claim has always been regarded as such has often not been viewed in that way by people of different epochs and cultures.

Just because you want to disregard history and their opinions and beliefs (or merely downgrade them as subsets of your own) does not make it the case.

Why is it not enough for you to say 'I believe X is wrong although others may not' ? Why do you feel the need to justify your belief by elevating it to a universal immutable truth ?

I run and hide or call Groverat

Whatever happened, if it was detrimental to myself I would see it as 'wrong' if it was 'wrong' but within the context of our meeting - ie the time, place, society, our upbringing etc.

Just because something bad happened to me doesn't mean I would see it as a universal wrong or an absolute. No way.

This is actually what I was initially getting at - we wandered off-topic and are now back full-circle: the worrying thing about this rising tide of 'literalism' (for want of a better word) that the election of this Pope is symptomatic of, is the conflation of personal injustice (or even societal) with an absolute 'faith-based' moral wrong.

It's frightening and dehumanising.

That's three now....

That's not the case - both you and I are possibly right and possibly wrong. If neither of us starts to believe we are absolutely right then there are no factors getting in the way of our harmonious co-existence.