The Absolutist and The Relativist

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 22 Jan 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Kiama	22 Jan 2002
So, here's the story, that will lead to a very worried question. There's the Absolutist (Someone who believes that there is only one true religion and truth). He's 34, a Philosophy teacher, a Christian, and a really cool guy. Then there's the Relatvist (Someone who believes the truth is dependent on the indvidual: Wht's right for one person may not be right for the other...) She's 17, a Philosophy student, a Pagan, and a really cool person. ;p They are discussing religion, and the Absolutist claims that there can only be one true religion and truth, cuz to him, if a truth is to be a truth, it has to be constant, not flexible as the Relativist would have you believe. The Relativist says that nobody sees t world in the same way as everyone else. The Moon Joe Bloggs is loking at is a totally different Moon to the one Bart Simpson is looking at... So why is this not true of religion? Anyway.... They continued discussing this for a while, but gradually it became apparant that it was merely a 'Is-isn't is-isn't' argument, which is no good when trying to come to a conclusion.... So, my question to all you guys, is how ca I argue my Relativist point of view to an Abolutist, withut the 'is-isn't' pheomena? Itseems that there is hardly any proof, or evidence at all to back either claim up: It is purely subjective.... AGH! *Kiama tear hair out* And I have to win this argument. TIA Kiama

Diana	22 Jan 2002
I've got to go and pick up my son from school, but my first thought is: Oh yes, some arguments have to be won. But I'm just wondering what definition of "truth" you are using. Are you both using the same one? In other words, what exactly is meant by true religion according to Mr. Abs. Hope you're going to get tons of replies to your post and that you'll have Mr. Abs. looking up in wonder at you and saying "Now here's a true philosopher".

Kiama	22 Jan 2002
For this argument, we're using the word 'truth' in reference to religion. Luckily, we're both using the same definitoin, so I've been spared the word play this time! (Its the bane of philosophy in my opinion!) When Mr Abs (Love the name you've given him, Diana!) refers to one truth, he means there is only one correct religion, and that the rest are incorrect. Now, the last thing I want to do is bash his religion in any way: I love this man to bits, and he's the best teacher I've ever had. He's never bashed my beliefs, so I think I'll give him the due respect and treat him with dignity. I'm not really asking whether or not Christianity is the 'correct' religon: I'm just asking about how do argue Absolutism against Relativism... Kiama

Major Tom	22 Jan 2002
Kiama - I guess I'd need to know the definition of religion to properly answer your question. For me, religion is about my relationship with God. You already know I believe God is everything. Couldn't you make your relativism absolute? Religion is the individual reconnecting with God. The form of the connection is entirely unique to the individual. This doesn't prevent individuals from organising their reconnection efforts... The truth is God is everything. Love is the law. }>

Marion	22 Jan 2002
Quote: Kiama (22 Jan, 2002 20:36): And I have to win this argument. Kiama Seriously Kiama, you don't *have* to win the argument. The only way you could possibly *win* with someone who believes something absolutely is to have them abandon their position completely. The guy clearly is prepared to concede you your point of view... or you wouldn't like and respect him... maybe you should concede him his.

Kaz	22 Jan 2002
Ok, these arguments are reasons I always try to avoid discussions about politics and religion....ppl never agree, so why take the trouble even trying, and if it just stays with comparing and discussing, fine, but most of the time it gets to arguments. Both are right in a way, ever heard of Heisenberg? Relate place to speed, if you know place for 100% you know 0% of speed and vice versa, both elements make up 100%, so if you can say 60% certainty the place will be here, you know 40% certainty speed will be that value. This is particle theory. no-one can be sure 100% because of particle theory applies everywhere. everything is made out of particles and particles create the vibes that makes things, life, light, thoughts, collective consious, you name it. It's really hard to explain this in english for me, I hope you get the idea...... just my 2 cents Kaz

truthsayer	22 Jan 2002
*****i'm relating to this as if from the christian viewpoint so i'm using he and God*****generally, i avoid at all costs, a discussion about religion but i'm game since this appears to be friendly and based on mutual respect. is he saying God is constant, never changes or shifts opinion and stays the same in all ways? are you saying that even if God is constant it doesn't mean God doesn't change. perhaps the true constant of God's nature is that as human kind grows, God grows, too. nature changes the seasons and the earth constantly. mankind has evolved. this has been the same course of life for billions of years. nature is constant but cyclically changes. God created nature. thus would it only be logical and natural for God to be like his great creations and constantly change? could this be a truth about the constant nature of God?

cayacia	22 Jan 2002
Argue all the parallels there are between all religions. There are lots of them and it can really slap some people in the face and make them think that maybe all religions are the same, yet different..? \^_^

Liliana	22 Jan 2002
heres my favorite little ancedote, it may help, it may not Suppose you lead 3 blind men to an elephant, put one at the trunk, one at the leg, and one at the tail. Now ask them to decribe the elephant. The one at the trunk may say "oh, its like a snake", the one at the leg "oh its huge like a tree" the tail "oh it feels like a brush" Are any wrong? of course not. most Christians will say their God can do anything, but they cram Him into a little box. God is like the elephant, we are the blind people. Hes too large to be understood as a whole by us, so everyone finds a part their comfortable with and focuses on it. As to the parrallels between Christianity and Paganism (Wicca in particular), i know all about that, since the part of the elephant i look at happens to be inbetween the Christian part and the Pagan part lol

Kiama	23 Jan 2002
Quote: Kaz (23 Jan, 2002 07:26): Ok, these arguments are reasons I always try to avoid discussions about politics and religion....ppl never agree, so why take the trouble even trying, and if it just stays with comparing and discussing, fine, but most of the time it gets to arguments. Unfortunately, this is what Philosophy entails. Without disagreements and a bit of an argument, how can we ever know about other's confllicting views? What better way to learn about a theory than to debta eit, and argue against its weaknesses? This is how I learn. I take a theory, and put it to others, (The people here on Aeclectic usually) and see what they have to say. Quote: Both are right in a way, ever heard of Heisenberg? Relate place to speed, if you know place for 100% you know 0% of speed and vice versa, both elements make up 100%, so if you can say 60% certainty the place will be here, you know 40% certainty speed will be that value. This is particle theory. no-one can be sure 100% because of particle theory applies everywhere. everything is made out of particles and particles create the vibes that makes things, life, light, thoughts, collective consious, you name it. It's really hard to explain this in english for me, I hope you get the idea...... just my 2 cents Kaz Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? A bit like Chaos Theory I suppose.... I can kinda see where you're going with it, but I'm not quite sure. I don't suppose you could make it a little clearer for me? Kiama

Kiama	23 Jan 2002
Quote: Marion (23 Jan, 2002 07:14): Quote: Kiama (22 Jan, 2002 20:36): And I have to win this argument. Kiama Seriously Kiama, you don't *have* to win the argument. The only way you could possibly *win* with someone who believes something absolutely is to have them abandon their position completely. The guy clearly is prepared to concede you your point of view... or you wouldn't like and respect him... maybe you should concede him his. My idea of winning in this debate is that I can actually logically defend my own viewpoint. Y'see, my Relativist viewpoint is purely subjective, and I came to it through emotion and religious belief, not through thinking logically about it. At the moment, it's kinda like I'm telling him that maybe all God's are one God, and all religion are one religion, etc, but I'm not giving him any proof. Cayacia: Thanks for reminding me about using the similarities in all religions! I think that is one of the strongest arguments you can have in this type of debate. Truth: You remind me of the idea that God in It's many forms is dependent upon Mankind. To explain this deeper, God turns into what man thinks he is. For instance, in Western culture It is white, male, etc. In Eastern culture, It is coloured. In shamanistic and African religions, God takes on forms of half-human, half-animal, etc... Liliana: Thankyou for that anectdote! You really managed to explain it all succinctly just by telling a story! I'll be using this from now on.... Major Tom: You make me think.... Hmmm... *Ouch, brain hurting* Kiama

Major Tom	23 Jan 2002
Quote: Kiama (23 Jan, 2002 18:54): At the moment, it's kinda like I'm telling him that maybe all God's are one God, and all religion are one religion, etc, but I'm not giving him any proof. Major Tom: You make me think.... Hmmm... *Ouch, brain hurting* Kiama You're very close to telling him that God is everything. ;D Very glad to hear I was able to return the favor. You almost always make me think. }>

tarotbear	24 Jan 2002
Which part of the elephant is the Christian part?

Diana	24 Jan 2002
Quote: [b] Major Tom (23 Jan, 2002 19:13) You're very close to telling him that God is everything. Greetings Major Tom: You've twice now written in this topic about God being everything. I'd love to ask you something about this, but I'm hesitating to do it in the forum. Not like it's anything silly, embarrassing or personal. Just that it might lead to one of those interminable religious discussions that people tend to want to avoid in general. Can I e-mail you, or do you think I should just go ahead and post my question on the forum? (And re my frequent posts: ha ha, someone's noticed! Well, instead of shivering in bed with flu and a 40 degrees temperature, I've been shivering in front of Aeclectic. But it's back to work this afternoon :(

Kiama	24 Jan 2002
Quote: Major Tom (23 Jan, 2002 19:13): You're very close to telling him that God is everything. ;D Very glad to hear I was able to return the favor. You almost always make me think. }> Ooh... Ooh! I get it! He believes that God is everywhere and in everything. That means he is present in every single perception of the Divine... Which would mean that every single percepton of the Divine is the perception of that same being... (This theory still needs some tweaking.) Anyway, I was up until the late hours last night delving through my very worn copy of the Jesus Mysteries Thesis, Man and His Symbols, and In Search of The Sacred, gathering anthropological evidence and historical origins of Christianity in order to back up relativism and prove that it is logically virtuous. So far, I'm doing really well, esp. researching the similarities between Christianity and the religions that were around at the same time. But what I'm not trying to do is make Mr Abs feel I am telling him Christianity is the wrong religion, or that it is false: Just that it is just another religion amongst thousands, and that maybe it's storis of Jesus are just myths, as are most other religion's stories.... Goddess bless Carl Jung! (I am finding him extremely helpful with this research.) Kiama

Lilliana	24 Jan 2002
To add to what Kaz was saying about particle and quantum physics, you can see the same think at work with einsteins relativity. We often think of time as simply "out there", as in we all experience the same absolute universal time. Those who have done high school physics will be aware that this is not the case. Time is completely and utterly relative to how fast you are travelling in space. My time at the moment is probably minutely different from the one Kiama is experiencing. What I percieve to be happening "now", Kiama may percieve to have already happened. Travel really close to the speed of light and the effects become obvious (strange things start to happen like einstein's twin's paradox). Likewise, relativity theory also destroys our notions of absolute distance (what I may perceive to be 1 metre, you may percieve as 1 centimetre depending on how fast you are travelling). The same thing happens with absolute motion, there is actually no such thing. All motion is relative. Relativity theory coupled with quantum mechanics pretty much wipes out the existence of absolute anything. The new physics really brings up some fascinating philosophical questions. As far as the debate on relativity vs. absolutism goes. Throw in some stuff about new physics. Unless he wants to debate the correctness of einstein's equations, he'll have to accept that relativity is a very real part of existence. Anyway, don't get too hung up on this argument Kiama :) , when it comes to personal beliefs, it's very hard, if not impossible to have an objective debate. Lilli

Major Tom	24 Jan 2002
Quote: Kiama (24 Jan, 2002 22:02): Ooh... Ooh! I get it! He believes that God is everywhere and in everything. That means he is present in every single perception of the Divine... Which would mean that every single percepton of the Divine is the perception of that same being... (This theory still needs some tweaking.) Kiama Kiama - ...which would mean that every single perception is a perception of the Divine. Which isn't too far away from what physics is saying these days - everything is made of the same stuff and time is relative to motion. Diana - Feel free to email if you'd like or take a risk and post your question. Don't gaurantee I'll have any answers...

joya250	24 Jan 2002
Kiama... okay, first let me just say that I cheated, cause after I read your first post, I skipped down to reply without reading the rest. (I'm at work and the boss is lurking) ... but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents. First, I know how frustrating it can be dealing with someone who is so rigid in their belief. Now for my rambling... there really is ONE truth... if you look at it in terms of "All That Is".... it is this one truth that has been perpetuated throughout the ages and by almost every single culture... the Taoists, Christian Mystics, Exestential Philosophers (spelled that wrong, I thinks), etc., etc. The one truth is that we are fractions and are questing to return to singularity.... (or at least we are biologically hardwired to feel that way.) So, in fact, there is one truth, but countless manifestations of pathways back to that Truth. yah, I guess this prob. has been said, and it's not anything new, but I had to throw it in. :)

Kiama	24 Jan 2002
Quote: joya250 (25 Jan, 2002 05:03): Kiama... okay, first let me just say that I cheated, cause after I read your first post, I skipped down to reply without reading the rest. (I'm at work and the boss is lurking) ... but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents. First, I know how frustrating it can be dealing with someone who is so rigid in their belief. Now for my rambling... there really is ONE truth... if you look at it in terms of "All That Is".... it is this one truth that has been perpetuated throughout the ages and by almost every single culture... the Taoists, Christian Mystics, Exestential Philosophers (spelled that wrong, I thinks), etc., etc. The one truth is that we are fractions and are questing to return to singularity.... (or at least we are biologically hardwired to feel that way.) So, in fact, there is one truth, but countless manifestations of pathways back to that Truth. yah, I guess this prob. has been said, and it's not anything new, but I had to throw it in. :) *Kiama thinks about this for a second* So, that would be Relative Absolutism..... ;p No, seriously: That's a very good idea, and I hadn't thought of it before in that way. I suppose its nice too cuz it manages to mingle both Absolutism and Relativism, so there isn't too much squabbling between factions. And to those who did the sciency bit: Thankyou. Physics was never my strong point, and I've only recently learned about quantum mechanics (I used it as an argument against determinism in Philosophy). You guys all explained it so well, that I just understood it straight away. I'm gonna do some research on it though. Is it anywhere in Stephen Hawkings' writings? I have his 'Brief history of Time' so I'm praying its in there! Kiama

Marion	24 Jan 2002
Kiama, please be cautious about using quantum mechanics in an argument. Relativity effects do not begin to operate until you are moving very close to the speed of light. In normal life, plain old Newtonian mechanics operate. It is true that when travelling near the speed of light, time and distance are very much distorted. In fact at light speed neither time nor distance has much meaning. But at lesser speeds there is very little effect and practically sitting still as we are, there is infinitesimal effect. It is also true that everything is composed of particles, and they do all vibrate... in a sense, but not in any sense you are thinking of.. and ... I am guessing you aren't going to win any arguments with that. I think the suggestion of others that showing how all religions are just faces of the divine may allow you to *win*, or get him to see your viewpoint.

Lilliana	24 Jan 2002
Marion, To be pedantic, spacetime warps don't just happen when you're travelling close to the speed of light. All motion effects time to an extent. If I am sitting on the side of the road and you drive past me in a car, my watch will be running faster than yours. In other words, my time is running faster. Scientists have measured this effect using atomic clocks in aeroplanes. Also gravity has an effect on time. If you are in a high rise building, your time is running faster than someone on the ground. Oh yes, and even Newton was aware the "absolute motion" was a meaningless concept. Also, about particles and quantum mechanics- we don't know for certain when things stop displaying quantum effects and when things start to behave like "regular" objects. I'm sure you've heard of the famous paradox, shrodinger's cat. Put simply, we are never certain when the cat's wave function collapses, it's pretty much a question of how small can you go. Also, you have to take into account wave-particle duality, whether the physicist detects a particle or a wave is totally dependent on what the physicist chooses to detect (relativity again). I wasn't suggesting Kiama try to win this argument by using new physics. But if this person was faced with new physics, they would have to at least accept that relativity is a very real and intrinsic part of nature. Pretty much all physical laws have an aspect of relativity to them. Kiama- Stephen Hawking does go into relativity in his book, but it is rather dense. You really have to study it hard to understand what he's on about. Actually, if you can get hold of any (should be at your public library) try some Paul Davies books. His work provides a great introduction, and is very easy to understand. Lilli

Kaz	25 Jan 2002
Kiama, I suggest this book, it's really easy to read for people who don't know much about physics and quantum physics. And it's funny as well. The Dancing Wu-Li Masters, written by Gary Zukav. Kaz

Kaz	25 Jan 2002
Comments to add to Lilliane and Marions posts, thanks for explaining a bit more of that stuff. If you look at what matter is made of, it's all quantum mechanics that are at work. We people, stones, nature, animals, plants, everything is made out of the same elements in different quantities of those, but basiscally the same. And if you go deep enough in those buildingblocks you get to quantum mechanics and absolutivity stops, there is only relativity then. Those particals "send" out electrical waves, this happens in our bodies and in a stone, there is no differnce in that. See post above here for duality particle/light. This is ever continuing process. I hope I made some sense here, sorry Kiama for not being able to explain these things really well, it is really hard to write a good story and explaining this in english, I can in my own language, hmm , if I come up with a more I''ll post again. Kaz

The The Absolutist and The Relativist thread was originally posted on 22 Jan 2002 in the Spirituality board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Spirituality, or read more archived threads.