Part Three:  How Did Moral Relativism Become Acceptable in American Culture; What’s Wrong with it Anyway?  

Relativism is a cardinal doctrine of postmodernism, and its tentacles extend into virtually every aspect of American culture. This is especially the case with moral relativism, which is arguably the most common apologetic issue Christians bump into in everyday life. It is not the most important apologetic issue of our time; defending the reliability of Scripture and Jesus’ deity and resurrection are much more crucial issues. But moral relativism has permeated religion, ethics, entertainment, media, law, and essentially every other area of American society.

Conforming to the foundational postmodern presupposition that there are no absolute truths in any area of knowledge, moral relativism teaches that acceptable moral behavior depends on the circumstances that define it (situational). In other words, because people’s beliefs and experiences vary and are often culturally conditioned, moral “truth” is relative to individual preferences. Consequently, what was true in the past may not be true today, and what is true for some people is not true for others. For example, not many years ago homosexuality was considered a sin or sickness; today it’s a widely accepted alternative lifestyle. In the past, cohabitation was considered immoral, today its legitimate behavior.

To fully grasp how such a deviant view of morality evolved into prominence in American culture, we have to begin by understanding that the dominant worldview in America, at least since the mid-twentieth century, is secular humanism. Secular humanism is fundamentally atheistic—there is no God. Here’s how this evolved into moral relativism throughout much of western culture:

• If there is no God, people become supreme beings (humanism), and no higher authority exists to set absolute ethical standards (e.g. God).
• If people are supreme beings, moral behavior is determined by human feelings and experiences and what is sanctioned by their cultures.
• Since people and cultures differ in their opinions of certain moral issues (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, or ethnic genocide), and there is no absolute standard (God) to say which view is right and which is wrong, it follows logically that all moral perspective must be equally true (moral relativism).

In sum, if people are supreme beings, they and their cultures set moral standards even if they contradict one another. And you and I are expected to accept all views as equally legitimate because there is no higher authority to say that anyone’s views are wrong. Without God, there is no ultimate “good” to identify what is ultimately “bad.” Moral behavior is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It’s how we act, not how we ought to act. Sin in an absolute sense is nonexistent. ©

Next week we’ll explore how relativism plays out in religious pluralism.

Part Two:  Why Are Moral Relativism and Religious Pluralism Inconsistent and Indefensible?

Moral relativism and religious pluralism are two fundamental presuppositions (assumptions) of postmodernism. In the next two weekly blog posts, I’ll explain what each of these presuppositions means and give examples of how they are used. But as a way of getting started, this week we’ll look at what are the qualifications for any legitimate worldview. This will make it easier to see why relativism and pluralism are illegitimate worldview assumptions.

In the broadest sense, a worldview is a standard or filter by which an individual, consciously and unconsciously, interprets all data to maintain a consistent and coherent understanding of the whole of reality. Worldviews are made up of certain presuppositions that people take for granted to be true. This includes ethical and religious values. However, the presuppositions that form the infrastructure of a worldview are not automatically true. They may be partially true or false. If its foundational presuppositions are false, the worldview that rests on them will also be false, and people will believe truth-claims (religious or otherwise) that are far removed from where the truth lies. In the next couple of blog posts, we’ll see this is the case with moral relativism and religious pluralism.

Worldview Tests

For a worldview to correspond to reality, it must pass at least three tests: (1) it must be both internally and externally consistent and coherent (not contradictive); (2) answer crucial questions about life and the cosmos that correspond to human nature and experience as universally understood and lived out; and (3) be emotionally and spiritually satisfying.

The fact is, moral relativism and religious pluralism, as worldview ideologies, fail to pass any of these fundamental tests. Neither have legitimate and consistent answers to life’s great questions. Rather they promote beliefs that are out of sync with human nature and experience and often common sense (e.g. “All religions are true” or “There are no absolute moral standards that apply to everyone”). The Christian worldview alone is internally and externally consistent, coherent, and corresponds to reality. Furthermore, unlike false ideologies, Christianity can be demonstrated to be objectively true, and to a degree unmatched by any other religious worldview.

Our apologetic tactic is to challenge postmodern relativists and religious pluralists to justify the inconsistencies and false claims typical in the postmodern worldview. When they fail to do so, the door is open for us to provide the biblical perspectives on Christianity’s coherent and consistent answers to life’s great issues: Why are we here? Where did we come from? What happens to us after death? Why is there so much pain and suffering in the world? Why do we need a redeemer and savior? ©

I examine in detail moral relativism and religious pluralism in my revised and expanded edition of Defending Your Faith; Reliable Answers for a New Generation of Seekers and Skeptics.

Part One: Why Secularism and Relativism are  Destroying the Moral Fabric of America

Perhaps the simplest way to respond to moral relativism, as well as to the whole secular/postmodern worldview, is to demonstrate that it is destroying the moral fabric of America.

A worldview is not just a philosophy of life; it’s a blueprint for living. It sets the moral and social standards by which people in a culture largely think and behave. All worldviews must possess several necessary ingredients if they are to sustain a healthy, civilized society. One of these is that it must promote moral virtues. History has shown that civilizations that degenerate morally ultimately collapse. Is today’s secular world healthy? Consider these statistics from William Bennett’s, The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators: American Society at the End of the Twentieth Century:

Since 1960, our population has increased 48 percent. But since 1960, even taking into account recent improvements, we have seen a 467 percent increase in violent crime; a 463 percent increase in the numbers of state and federal prisoners; a 461 percent increase in out-of-wedlock births; more than a 200 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes; more than a doubling in the teenage suicide rate; a more than 150 percent increase in the number of Americans receiving welfare payments; an almost tenfold increase in the number of cohabiting couples; a doubling of the divorce rate; and a drop of almost 60 points on SAT scores. Since 1973, there have been more than [60] million abortions. (p. 4)

These statistics are around twenty years old; one can only imagine how worse many of them will be today. Abortion, for example, has nearly doubled since Bennett’s research, from 35 million to 60 million—enough dead babies to repopulate the entire west coast of America, including Alaska. My point is these statistics give ample evidence that America’s moral stability under the flag of secularism has rapidly declined during the past few decades.

It is no coincidence that during the same four decades in which the influence of Christianity in America declined, the moral health of America has deteriorated. The moral decay in American culture parallels the diminishing influence of the Christian worldview and its role as the moral standard-bearer in society. Remove God from the picture and put people in His place, as secular humanism does, and civilization crumbles.

Christian apologists can prove this. A wealth of up-to-date figures are available on the Internet, in journals, and in books that provide ample data to support the argument that America, like previous civilizations, may be moving closer to moral collapse because society as a whole has rejected Biblical values and principles. ©

Are Traditional Apologetic Tactics Useful Today?

The concern that traditional apologetic tactics may not be useful today has prompted some Christian apologists to suggest that Christians must avoid relying on propositional truth-claims and instead make their case from a wholly subjective point of view. Why? They say people today ignore logic, sidestep rational discussions, and deny the possibility of discovering absolute truth. These people often shrug us off with quips such as:

• “Well, that may be true for you but it’s not for me.”
• “All religions are basically the same. Christianity isn’t the only path to God.”
• “You may not like abortion, but that doesn’t mean it’s not OK for other people.”
• “That’s your interpretation; I have my own. And it’s just as valid as yours!”

Although successfully communicating apologetics in today’s secular, relativistic culture may necessitate adding subjective weapons to our apologetic arsenal, I disagree that traditional apologetics is ineffective today. In fact, Christian apologists who sidestep the issue of absolute truth, especially in terms of Christian truth-claims, are making a serious tactical error, which will greatly diminish their effectiveness in countering moral relativism and religious pluralism.

Christianity, after all, is a history-based religion grounded on specific historical events (See 1 Corinthians 15:3-8). We cannot separate the first Advent of Jesus Christ, the Day of Pentecost described in Acts 2, Jesus’ resurrection, and other historical events from the spiritual truths that flow out of them. This historical “rootedness” separates Christianity from all other religions. If we can’t demonstrate the Bible reveals genuine knowledge, wisdom, and absolute truth, Christianity becomes just one more dish in the smorgasbord of available religions.

Rather than hiding from the reality of absolute truth and the veracity of sound reasoning, our first apologetic task, when confronting secularists and relativists, is to establish that Christianity rests on verifiable historical facts and presents absolute, objective truth—not subjective opinions.

Fortunately, in spite of what critics may say, this approach works. As C. S. Lewis pointed out in God in the Dock; Essays on Theology and Ethics,

One of the things that distinguishes man from the other animals is that he wants to know things, wants to find out what reality is like, simply for the sake of knowing. . . . Christianity claims to give an account of facts—to tell you what the real universe is like. . . . If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all. (108-109)

The fact is most people still maintain beliefs that depend on absolute truth. Even people who verbally endorse moral relativism and preach religious pluralism do not (as we’ll see in a later blog post) live consistently with this philosophy. It’s easy to tout moral relativism at a party or in a classroom, but in the real world, most people still think and behave in terms of moral absolutes and still accept the trustworthiness of logic and reason in most areas of life. ©

WHEN IS OUR APOLOGETIC TASK COMPLETED—AND HOW DO WE RESPOND IF REJECTED?

This blog post concludes my short series on offensive apologetics; that is, why putting the burden of proof on skeptics and other critics is good apologetics—and how to do it. As we saw, the idea is to challenge skeptics to clarify, justify, and explain why they believe their position on the issues under discussion is true and the Christian view false. Often they can’t because they are merely parroting what they heard in popular culture. This can result in opportunities to share the Christian perspective.

This raises the questions: “When is our apologetic task completed?” And, “How do we know when we’ve done all we can in apologetic evangelism?”

Unfortunately, demonstrating the truth of Scripture and the authority and deity of Jesus Christ does not automatically result in an unbeliever becoming a Christian. People can choose to make a willful decision to reject Jesus in spite of the best evidence. People can and do make emotional and moral commitments to unbelief. But these are not rational reasons. They are “don’t-bother-me-with-the-facts” kind of responses.

Nevertheless, on a purely intellectual level, if our apologetics has been successful, unbelievers will recognize that if God exists and has revealed Himself to the human race, Christianity is it. We want them to conclude that applying the same truth test to Christianity they apply to virtually all other decisions in life, Christianity is the only contender for religious truth. People searching for religious truth can check-out the facts and verify Christian truth-claims before ever committing themselves to become a Christian.

I’m not saying apologetic evidence alone will lead a person to make a faith commitment to Christ. No one makes such a decision unaided by the Spirit of God; it is always the work of the Holy Spirit to convict, convince, and convert. However, when we have removed alleged intellectual obstacles to faith (real or imagined), we’ve created an environment favorable for the work of the Holy Spirit.

Our job as apologists/evangelists is completed when we bring skeptics to the point where they admit (if only to themselves) that their real reason for disbelief is not intellectual at all. At that point, we have successfully done our Job in apologetics. If unbelief persists, all we can do is leave the door open for future discussions, and continue to pray God will soften the hearts and open the minds of those with whom we’ve shared our faith. ©

DO OTHER RELIGIONS HAVE A BETTER EXPLANATION AND SOLUTION FOR EVIL AND HUMAN SUFFERING THAN CHRISTIANITY?

In last week’s blog post, we saw that atheists claim the presence of evil and human suffering, called the “problem of evil,” proves God does not exist. Of course it doesn’t prove this, and I suggested a response that helps atheists to see it. But what about non-Christian religions? Do they have better explanations and solutions to the problem of evil than Christianity? There are only five possible alternative answers to this emotional-loaded issue. Let’s see if they offer better solutions:

 Atheism  This explanation denies the existence of God. Therefore, all people must live with evil and suffering. There is no God to restrain evil. There is no Holy Spirit to comfort people who suffer. There is no future life where evil and suffering will be absent. In the absurd world of atheism, evil and suffering are products of evolution—survival of the fittest. One can only accept this and live without any hope of a solution. Moreover, since evil is an evolutionary by-product, atheists have no objective or moral basis for finding fault with pain and suffering.

 Dualism  This explanation claims that there is a supernatural force other than God from which evil arises. This force is equal to and not controlled by God. This view fails because it creates a separate category for evil that is beyond God’s ability to control. Accordingly, God is incapable of solving the problem of evil and human suffering.

 Finitism: This explanation denies that God is all powerful. If He is not all-powerful, He is unable to destroy evil or even control its effects. There is no solution here.

Illusionism: This explanation denies the reality of evil and suffering, and is one of the governing philosophies of Eastern religions and like-minded cults. Evil is thus something we think is real but isn’t. Illusionism flies in the face of reality as everyone lives it out. Everyone experiences evil and suffering. What good is it to deny either if people must live with them or experience them? Ignoring the reality of evil and suffering doesn’t make them go away. Merely claiming that pain and suffering are illusions solves nothing. In fact, in Pantheism, God is not only unable to solve the problem of evil, he is also the cause of it.

Theism: Only biblical Christianity offers a compelling and reasonable explanation for the existence of evil and suffering, as people experience it. And only biblical Christianity promises God’s presence and comfort in our darkest hours—and the absence of evil and suffering in a future new heaven and earth.

Our apologetic task is to help non-Christian see the failure of alternate solutions to the problem of evil and explain the biblical remedy and promised solution. A question that may get this discussion going can be something like this:  “If God is all loving and all powerful and yet chooses to allow pain and suffering to remain, He must have good reasons. May I share what the Bible has to say about this?” ©

CHALLENGING SKEPTICS TO GIVE A SOLUTION TO EVIL AND HUMAN SUFFERING IS GOOD APOLOGETICS—HERE ONE WAY TO DO IT

Many atheists claim the so-called “problem of evil” is the most powerful and compelling argument demonstrating God does not exist. Here’s how the argument is usually stated:

If God is all-loving and all-powerful, He wouldn’t allow evil and suffering. But evil and suffering exists. Therefore, God is either not all-loving and doesn’t care that people suffer, or He’s not all-powerful and can’t stop it. Either way, God doesn’t exist as you Christian believe.

 Entire books have been written in response to this powerful and emotionally-laden argument against the existence of God, and it’s impossible to give an adequate reply during a coffee break at work or a casual encounter at a party. But we can apply the technique we’ve examined in the previous blog posts in this series—asking questions that shift the burden of proof onto skeptics. As we saw, we do this by challenging them to clarify, justify, and explain why they believe their position on the issue at hand is true.

Nowhere is this a more effective technique than with the problem of evil. In particular, it helps the atheist and other skeptics to see that the problem of evil is an even more daunting issue for them than it is for Christians. Once they admit this, we are in a position to give the Christian response—which I do in detail in my updated and revised edition of Defending Your Faith; Reliable Answers for a New Generation of Seekers and Skeptics.

Consider asking a question like this:

If God doesn’t exist, what is the solution to evil and human suffering? It’s easy to blame God, so let’s remove Him from the equation. What’s left? Can you think of a solution to evil and suffering without God?

Unbelievers will have one of two responses: They may suggest alternate solutions (which I’ll refute in next week’s blog post), but with a little reflection, it’s easy to demonstrate that no non-Christian religion or secular philosophy can provide an adequate solution to evil and human suffering. They may deny it, ignore it, or claim there is no solution—but they can’t solve it.

Or second, unbelievers may admit there is no solution, which opens the door for us to provide a biblical response.

The idea of challenging atheists and skeptics to provide a solution to the problem of evil is to get right to the heart the problem: There is no solution without God; No one can reject God and explain the existence or origin of evil and suffering. ©

REBOUND QUESTIONS:  WHY ASKING SKEPTICS THE SAME QUESTIONS THEY ASK US IS GOOD APOLOGETICS

 In this present series of blog posts, I’m suggesting ways to put the burden of proof on skeptics who ask questions, during apologetic and evangelistic discussions, which they think are unanswerable by Christians. The idea, as we saw in the previous two blog posts, is to challenge skeptics to clarify, justify, and explain why they believe their position on the issue at hand is true. Often they can’t because they are merely parroting what they heard in popular culture.

Another way we can apply this “offensive” apologetic tactic is to ask skeptics the same kinds of questions they ask us. I call these rebound questions. The idea is to help them see for themselves that their religious or secular worldviews face even more daunting challenges that the Christian worldview, in terms of resolving the issues they raise. At the very least, rebound questions will stimulate conversation and allow believers to present evidence for the Christian position on the topics under discussion.

 Unbeliever: “If the Christian God exists, how do you account for the existence of evil and suffering?”

Christian:   “If God doesn’t exist, what is your solution to evil and suffering?”

Unbeliever:  “You Christians can’t prove what you believe!”

Christian:   “Then you prove what you believe!”

Unbeliever:  “How do know the Bible is true?”

Christian:   “How do you know it’s not true?”

Unbeliever:  “Christians are so narrow-minded. You only think your religion is true!”

Christian:  “Don’t you believe your view is true? How does being narrow-minded make                      something untrue?”

Unbeliever:  “I think people are free to decide their own moral standards.”

Christian:   “Then infanticide is OK if someone thinks it’s morally acceptable?”

Unbeliever:  “What makes you think Christianity is true when it contradicts my religious beliefs?”

Christian:   How do you know your religion is true when it contradicts Christianity?”

Unbeliever:  “If a woman wants an abortion, it’s her right to do whatever she wants with her own body.”

Christian:   “Since an unborn baby is a human being, why wouldn’t it have the same right to live as the mother?”

 Unbeliever:  “Science disproves miracles like the resurrection.”

Christian:   “How can science disprove anything in history, since it depends on observation and experimentation?”

 Unbeliever:  “We don’t need a God to set standards of good and evil. People can make their own moral choices.”

Christian    “Does that mean gang rape and sex trafficking are acceptable for people who decide to engage in it?  Look at it like this. If God doesn’t exist, and people or societies disagree on what’s moral, how do you determine who is right and who is wrong? Was Hitler in the right since society in Germany during World War Two accepted killing Jews” ©

SIMPLE QUESTIONS SKEPTICS WILL FIND DIFFICULT TO ANSWER

In last week’s blog post, I explained the purpose of seven “generic” questions we can ask skeptics that puts the burden of proof on them when they challenge us during apologetic or evangelistic discussions. The idea is to get skeptics to explain why they reject the Christian perspective on an issue under discussion—and to justify it. Below are examples of questions we can ask applied to typical challenges skeptics raise against the Bible. They are simple questions any Christian can ask and will put the burden of proof back on the skeptic. During the next four blog posts, we’ll look at other categories of questions: evolution, the existence of God, Jesus, and moral/religious relativism.

“I don’t believe the Bible!”

• “Have you read or studied the Bible?”
• If a person says no: “Then are you saying you don’t believe in something you know nothing about?”
• If a person says yes: “What don’t you believe about the Bible, and why don’t you believe it?”

2. You don’t take the Bible literally, do you?”

• “Why wouldn’t God say what He intends to mean?”
• “If the Bible is God’s revelation to people about Himself, His plan for salvation, and His guidelines for how people can live an abundant life, why wouldn’t He make it literal?”
• “Why would God make us guess what the Bible means if He wants to communicate truth to us?”

3. Everyone knows that the Bible’s unreliable because it’s been translated so many times throughout the centuries!

• “ How do you know the Bible is unreliable?”
• “Where has the Bible been translated incorrectly?”
• “Thousands of Bible scholars believe the Bible is reliable and translated accurately. Why do you think they’re wrong?”
• “The science of textual criticism confirms the New Testament is 99.5 percent accurate to the original manuscripts. Why do you think they are wrong?”

4. Everyone knows that the Bible is full of contradictions!

• “What contradictions are you talking about? Can you give me some examples?”
• “How do you know there are contradictions in the Bible? Have you read it?
• “What difference would it make if a few minor contradictions do exist, as long as they don’t affect the historical accuracy and doctrinal truths of the Bible?”
• “Even if a few minor copyist errors do exist, how does that prove Jesus Christ isn’t God and Savior?”

5. Science proves miracles never happened!

• “How does science prove miracles never happened?”
• “Miracles are a matter of history and are verified by eyewitnesses. Can science prove anything that is historical in nature, like the existence of George Washington?”
• “If a transcendent, all-powerful, creating God exists, aren’t miracles possible—even probable?”

6. You can’t trust the Bible; it was written thousands of years ago!

• “Where is the Bible historically, prophetically, or in any other way untruthful?”
• “What does age have to do with truth?”
• “The Bible has been proven to be more historically reliable than any other ancient text. If you reject the Bible, why shouldn’t you reject the writings of the Greek and Roman historians; in fact, most of classical history?”

QUESTIONS THAT CHALLENGE SKEPTICS TO JUSTIFY THEIR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT CHRISTIANITY

The Christian worldview comes under attack most frequently in five areas: Truth and reliability of the Bible, rejection of creation in favor of naturalistic evolution (the topic in my previous blog series), rejection of God’s existence (atheism), deity of Jesus Christ, and our rejection of moral relativism/religious pluralism.

When challenged in these areas, I suggested in last week’s blog post that we initiate our response by putting the burden of proof on the skeptics; that is, challenge them to demonstrate why they believe the Christian view is false and their views correct. We can do this by asking “generic” questions such as:

1. What do you mean by that?

This question forces skeptics to clarify and elaborate on their views. If they are merely parroting something they heard through popular culture (secular colleges, television documentaries, the entertainment industry, etc.), it quickly becomes obvious because they won’t be able to explain what they mean.

2. How do you know that’s true?

When skeptics give an opinion they believe refutes the Christian view, we can challenge them to give proof or evidence for their assumptions. Often they have no evidence and their opinions are only hearsay

3. Why should I believe that?

Encourage skeptics to give the same kinds of evidence to support their views they expect us to provide for ours. We want them to realize if they can’t offer compelling evidence, why we should believe what they say?

4. Where did you learn that?

Challenge the skeptic’s source of information. Is it reliable or merely hearsay or personal opinion? This can do two things: First, it can help them to see if they are merely echoing what they heard from an unreliable source. Second, it reveals they believe misinformed assumptions about Christianity.

5. What is your solution to. . . ?

The idea here is to encourage non-Christians to recognize that apart from God their worldviews can’t solve the great problems of life, which all people face. For example, why is there so much evil and suffering in the world?

6. What difference does It make?

How do the beliefs of non-Christians affect the Christian worldview? Do they really invalidate Christianity?

7. If  . . .  is true, can you explain. . . .?

 This last category of questions is designed to raise issues the skeptic’s position or worldview assumptions cannot explain. Such as the origin of evil or scientific evidence that refutes naturalistic evolution. (c)

COMING UP:  In the following two or three blog posts, I’ll give examples of the kinds of questions we can ask relative to each of the seven categories listed above.

REMINDER:  The Christian position on the topics in this series can be read in detail in my revised and expanded edition of Defending Your Faith; Reliable Answers for a New Generation of Seekers and Skeptics (Kregel Publications, 2019). I provide a short introduction on my homepage (click on “home” above), or go to my book page on Amazon and click on “Look Inside” for more information.