<\/p>
Is truth universal? Is the only alternative to an idea of the universalism of all truth an affirmation of the relativism of all truth? <\/p>\n
This seems to be a false dichotomy from the beginning. Upon a moment\u2019s reflection, it seems clear that the truth is that some truths are relative and some are universal, some are relatively true in one sense and universally true in another. And those are universal truths, for those keeping score. <\/p>\n
Limit ourselves, for the sake of simplicity, to \u201ctruth\u201d as the truth-value of statements. I realize that I cite a variety of sorts of statement in the follow discussion, and that more careful attention to the particular types of statement might nuance the analysis. But I don\u2019t think it affects the fundamental argument. <\/p>\n
Is the statement \u201cMan cannot cross the Atlantic Ocean in a day\u201d true or false? The answer of course depends on when the statement was uttered. Someone saying this in the sixteenth century would have been stating a truth; someone saying this in the twenty-first is stating a falsehood, even if he lives in a tribe where air travel is unknown. So, the statement\u2019s truth is relative to time; but now that air travel is possible, the statement is universally false. <\/p>\n
Consider another statement: \u201cThe economy runs on oil.\u201d This is a true statement in the contemporary world for the US and some other advanced economies, but it is false for some smaller-scale economies (our tribesman again). So, this statement is relative both in terms of time and in terms of location. Whether it\u2019s true or not depends on where you are standing, and when. <\/p>\n
Within theological discourse, we have the same mixture of relative and universal. Some theological statements are universally true both temporally and \u201cgeographically,\u201d true in all times and places. Man is the image of God, the Creator made all things, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, faith is reckoned as righteousness, love does no wrong to a neighbor, etc. But some theological statements are temporally relative: Jerusalem is the city of the God (once true, but no longer), Jesus died on the cross (which was not true until he did \u2013 putting to the side John\u2019s \u201cLamb slain from the foundation of the world\u201d), the Spirit was poured out in abundance (which was no true until He was). Some theological statements are true for some people and not others: We are the temple of the living God, we have received the Spirit that is from God, we are new creations. <\/p>\n
There doesn\u2019t seem to be any reason to rachet all theological statements to the level of universal truth, though there is also no evidence for the existence of Lessing\u2019s ditch. It depends on the kind of statement that is made. <\/p>\n
Postmoderns sometimes assume that if they prove not all statements are universally true, therefore all statements are relative. That simply does not follow. Nor is the anti-postmodern on solid ground when he claims, in rejecting postmodernism, that universality is a characteristic of truth as such. <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Is truth universal? Is the only alternative to an idea of the universalism of all truth an affirmation of the relativism of all truth? This seems to be a false dichotomy from the beginning. Upon a moment\u2019s reflection, it seems clear that the truth is that some truths are relative and some are universal, some […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1857","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-philosophy"],"yoast_head":"\n