We fear the things we don’t understand.
Do we fear the existence of gravity, the process of photosynthesis, or the periodic table of the elements? No, because we know those to be sure and true. What about things such as political sentiment, religious dogma, or the perfect way to toast a bagel? Are they as “true” as the first three? They are, admittedly, more likely to cause disagreement and discomfort, and because of this, they require an understanding of personal perception.
In order to understand perception, there must be an understanding of truth. Truth is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “the property of being in accord with fact or reality.” We would say that if something is one hundred percent true, it would be an objective truth, such as the statement, “Andrews University is located in the state of Michigan.” The way in which we perceive objective truths is almost instantaneous, because it involves little to no thought behind it. Example: green is a color. We see grass with that color, that grass is green; thought done. However, when something is not inherently absolute, we would say that it is subjective, or based on how the individual interprets their environment in relation to their thoughts. In this case, perception of things such as the best ice cream flavor are all based on unique thoughts and how we perceive our world. Hence, personal perception that must be contemplated upon embodies subjectivity; taking away its essence leads to indoctrination.
Now, although the last sentence sounds quite harsh, it makes total sense once applied. If King Charles III publicly told all of the UK's residents that the best ice cream flavor is chocolate and anyone who didn’t think so is just wrong, then it sounds like lunacy. However, replace that with “my religious beliefs are right, and anyone who doesn’t think so is wrong,” and it becomes clear that a claim in absolute subjectivity is in fact indoctrination.
Some, however, don’t consider such claims to be so. Many (but not all) who believe that certain theological beliefs are objectively correct would tend to disagree with a concept called moral relativism. This concept is defined as having “no absolute rules to determine whether something is right or wrong,” and that the ideas of good and bad are relative to one’s experience. Those in disagreement with the theological implementation of moral relativism say that it undermines any concrete moral standard within a belief system, and that by “everyone having their own truth,” it calls into play the authority of a higher power.
However, this begs the question as to why opponents are even defensive about religious disagreements in the first place. I believe defending any concept means that you are, by default, connoting it as subjective. If one tries to defend an objective fact (such as how many minutes are in an hour), most reasonable people would wonder why they are taking the time to even argue so; it just is. So, we only tend to defend and debate about subjective things. This, when applied to conceptual viewpoints such as religion, could suggest that the simple act of defending a god reveals an unbelief in their ultimacy.
The fact of the matter is, if something objectively exists, then it just is. There would be no reason to become upset over disagreements, because it just is, and any sort of debate is simply a waste of time.That’s not to say that subjective things are automatically more or less complicated than objective truths, though. Objectively stating that “the temperature outside is 29 degrees Fahrenheit” is more complicated than subjectively saying “it’s cold outside;” conversely, subjectively saying “the events of the Holocaust were atrocious” is far more complicated than objectively stating that “6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust.”
The difference isn’t one of a tier of concept reliability, but simply a different category of concept. Because of the perceived ridiculousness of debating objective truths, this —for some— may raise concern regarding moral relativism’s implications on Christianity.
Often referring to moral relativism as “postmodernism” by religious critics (Adventism included), it is argued that this way of thinking is detrimental, because nothing can be true; thus, it rejects divine authority. By rejecting divine authority, Christianity as a religion crumbles, because church doctrine is based on it. What is peculiar, however, is that postmodernism as a sociological theory makes no distinction between subjective and objective statements. Critics
take this sociological definition, apply it to moral relativism (which deals with, well— morals), and deems them to be the same: they are not. While the former holds everything to be uncertain, the latter only deals with subjectivities. In fact, if we want to be meticulously technical on why considering moral relativism a detriment to Christianity is absurd, it could be effectively argued that Jesus Christ Himself held moral relativist stances.
A quick look at Matthew 22:37-39 demonstrates the sum of the crux of the Christian faith. “Love the Lord your God,” Jesus says, and then “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Is this commission not subjective by nature? You love your neighbor in reference to how you love yourself. Everyone loves in different ways; hence, there is no absolute outcome. It could be argued that since God is love, the way in which that love would be portrayed would be close to the same. However, that claim strips away free will, which is, admittedly, a whole other argument.
Nevertheless, religion is only one out of countless subjective applications. By recognizing that moral relativism does not deal with objective statements or claims, the ideology can be better distinguished and more understandable in any subjective context. Looking at all the contexts in which moral relativism is rightfully applicable, it would not be in good faith to say that another’s life choices are wrong just because we say so. Can we not trust people to be accurate translators of their own experiences?
We know this much: in our quest to know all, we discover that we know nothing. That may be —or may not be— the truth that will set us free.
The Student Movement is the official student newspaper of Andrews University. Opinions expressed in the Student Movement are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors, Andrews University or the Seventh-day Adventist church.