American culture fashions itself to be enlightened and civilized in thought. Belief in the great melting-pot (i.e. sociological pluralism) is a major part of the self-image of the culture, and integral to its immigrant past. Religious diversity is protected by constitutional law, to the benefit of all. An inevitable consequence of such diversity and pluralism, however, is confusion. This is abundantly represented by the ever-growing number of conflicting truth-claims competing daily for the attention of society. Amplified by the power of mass media, some truth-claims can achieve credibility well beyond that which they actually merit. Further, biased media reporting inhibits healthy debate on such claims by either not reporting competing truth-claims, or by misrepresenting competing truth claims. This is especially true of those viewpoints that are contrary to those they favor. The mass media themselves further contribute to societal confusion just by the sheer volume of information they present (i.e. "information overload"). All of this has contributed to a general breakdown in the public perception of truth in the Western world. Society increasingly views truth either apathetically, or with hostility. As the concept of truth degenerates, the body of society becomes weaker and weaker, and much more susceptible to the invasion of truth-hostile belief systems.

History shows that truth has been pondered and examined by humanity through time immemorial. It is an interesting testimony to the nature of humankind that more than 10,000 years of recorded human thought have not yet yielded a universal consensus on what exactly constitutes truth. One definition of truth is "truth is that which corresponds to reality." This would seem to be a reasonable definition, until one comes across those who say that reality is totally subjective, and only exists within the individual. The denial of objective reality is by no means a natural way of looking at the world, but it certainly has become a fashionable one. The problem with subjectivist views of reality, however, is that they always demand the type of credibility obtainable only by belief in external reality (i.e. objective reality). Then, they demand that you deny objective reality anyway. Examples of such belief systems are: relativism, which basically says truth is what is true for the individual; unprincipled pragmatism, which says that what works is true; and anti-intellectualism, which claims that thinking about truth is unnecessary, or even dangerous.

Relativism has two primary components: conceptual relativism and moral relativism. Conceptual relativism is the teaching that all concepts are equal. Moral relativism is the teaching that all morals are equal. Both components teach that the law of non-contradiction is irrelevant. The law of non-contradiction states that one cannot say "yes and no" about the same thing at the same time and in the same respect. In other words, the law of non-contradiction is one of the fundamental basics of rational thinking, in that without it no attempt at communication will have any intrinsic meaning. You the reader are relying upon this law even as you read these essays, and even as you formulate your responses. When we say that scientific reasoning is a rational enterprise with respect to evaluating data, you the reader do not understand us as saying that it is at the same time also an irrational enterprise with respect to evaluating data. We are saying it is one and not the other, and not both. You are understanding that it is one and not the other, and not both. While you may not agree with the assertion, you are still properly understanding it. The law of non-contradiction assures us that these two opposite truth values cannot both be operating at the same time and in the same respect. Through this, we are assured of the ability to communicate that fact to you. Indeed, to attempt to assert that it is both at the same time is itself an irrational act. Even so, such self-refuting "thinking" is very popular among certain philosophical and academic circles, and is being regularly taught to students today.

Conceptual Relativism

Let's briefly examine conceptual relativism, the idea that all concepts are equal. For example, if conceptual relativism is applicable, then the proponents of the theories that there is no such thing as human-induced global warming are just as right as the proponents of the theories that there is such a thing as human-induced global warming. The supporting evidence does not matter in either case, because both concepts are equally valid regardless of the supporting evidence. Moreover, both can be "right" simultaneously, despite the fact that their assertions are logically contradictory. It comes down to this: the fundamental necessity for conceptual relativism is the denial of absolute truth. If absolute truth exists, then conceptual relativism does not. If conceptual relativism exists, then absolute truth does not. The two are mutually exclusive phenomena. And we must not miss the self-refuting nature of this basic assertion: that conceptual relativism calls upon the concept of absolute truth in the effort to deny that there is absolute truth. This is because "there is no absolute truth" in itself is an absolute statement, inevitably submitting to the law of non-contradiction. To further show the degree to which such thinking is unprofitable, the statement "there is absolute truth" is not acknowledged by conceptual relativists as being equally valid, a conclusion which invalidates their own self-contradictory position.

How conceptual relativism can contribute to the good of humanity is certainly unclear. Why one would choose such a worldview, however, can be readily explained by it having been chosen by those who harbor an entrenched hostility to truth. Those with most to gain from conceptual relativism are those with the most self-centered, chaotic, and anarchic approaches to life and living. Those with the least to gain, indeed with the most to lose, are those who are attempting to respect others, and who are attempting to discover and classify the order, purposes, and symmetry of the natural world. And again, whether or not by that name, conceptual relativism is commonly being taught in our schools today.

Moral Relativism

Now we shall examine moral relativism, the idea that all morals are equal. According to this worldview, we are not supposed to "judge" the rightness or wrongness of another's actions or attitudes. Rather, all moral systems are equally valid and above reproach. The key issue with moral relativism, then, is the same as that for conceptual relativism. Moral relativism must, by necessity, deny that absolute truth exists. The self-refuting nature of this basic assertion should not be missed here either, moral relativism calls upon the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth.

The appalling irony of moral relativism is that, while its adherents scream for "tolerance," the relativism itself which they so passionately advocate completely denies the possibility of tolerance. This is because moral relativism itself offers no legitimate basis upon which to judge whether or not any given behavior or attitude is tolerant or intolerant. An excellent example can be found in how the issue of homosexuality is currently being addressed by moral relativists in our society.

Science, Moral Relativism, and Human Sexuality

It has been said that "tolerance requires acceptance of homosexual behavior as normal." To the thinking person, however, this statement presents no few problems. For example, what is the basis for judging that the acceptance of homosexual behavior as "normal" is a hallmark of being tolerant? Put another way, why is not accepting homosexual behavior as normal intolerant? Who has decided this? Where is the standard by which this particular behavior has received approval? Who has established that standard? Why has this standard been established? These are all excellent questions, indeed they are tremendously important questions. Yet, according to moral relativism, these are also questions without any answers, because, by the tenets of relativism, there is no objective standard by which the rightness of such positions can be defended. Can anyone in the scientific community, or anyone with a scientific mindset, truly agree that such intolerance to legitimate and important questions is beneficial to our society?

Another concern with respect to human sexuality and science is the incessantly repeated claim that homosexuality is biologically determined, and not a result of personal choice. The problem with this claim is that there is absolutely no legitimately recognized scientific evidence to support it. None at all. Why isn't the scientific community rising up in outrage at this wholesale hijacking of the credibility of science? Is it not a significant concern to scientists that such a blatant lie is being exhaustively circulated in the name of science? One awful possibility is that scientific integrity has also been lost to moral relativism. Another is that the scientific community has simply fallen asleep at the societal switch. Another is that the drumbeat of "tolerance" has so benumbed the fiery independence of science that scientific research has become a lap dog to political correctness. We would greatly prefer to think that the scientific community has not fallen so far as to actively and knowingly promote false science in the name of base political agendas.

Whatever the cause (or causes), however, the fact of false teaching in the name of science is as unjustifiable and injurious as false teaching in the name of religion. If the religious community as a whole can be held accountable for all lies spread in its name, so too can the scientific community as a whole be held accountable for such propaganda in its name. And it is up to both of our communities to clean up our respective acts.

Before leaving the area of science, relativism, and human sexuality, we need to examine one more thing. With respect to human sexuality, the inevitable consequence of a relativistic moral order and a muted scientific community is that there soon will be no such thing as immoral sexuality. For the moment, we still have laws that make pedophilia and incest illegal, but in a relativistic moral system, and in the absence of legitimate scientific input, there is ultimately no reason to find them morally reprehensible. It is only a matter of time before some remotely similar behavior in the animal kingdom will be cited as evidence of its normalcy. It is only a matter of time before some unsubstantiated study of five pedophiles who happen to all have the same length of pinky fingers will be cited as evidence of its biological determination. It is only a matter of time before opposition to them will similarly be dubbed as "intolerance." This, then, is what is waiting for us all, if the scientific community fails in its duty to openly uphold sound science. This, then, is what is waiting for us all if the scientific community fails to openly and loudly discredit bad science.

If such a scenario seems far-fetched, consider that an entire generation has now been raised being taught that it is "intolerant" to judge Nazi Germany as an horrific and immoral state. If such a group of monsters as the Nazis has been given a free pass with respect to the judgment of history, where then does "tolerance" end? It is hardly alarmist to expect that other monstrosities, on both a tremendously smaller scale and a tremendously larger scale, will also ultimately be excused in such a relativistic world order.

In the world of relativistic morality, the yardstick for tolerance varies from person to person, or from group to group. The inevitable consequence is not the proverb that "one man's meat is another man's poison," but the mixed aphorism that "the butcher rules the roost." For if the butcher calls the guts "good meat," that is what the guts become, since relativism and "tolerance" both ensure that no one has the right to question the butcher. The butcher is skilled at judging the cutting of meat, yes, but that hardly qualifies him or her to be a reliable judge of the morality of declaring one cut "choice" and another cut "parts." Not only is the butcher ill-equipped to judge the morality of someone else's course of actions, he is even less a reliable judge of the morality of his own course of actions. Moral relativism puts the butcher in charge, and the butcher will inevitably look out for number one. Moral and conceptual relativism lead to anarchy and intolerance, and that is the truth.

Feedback/Comments/Questions