Frequently Asked Questions

Man hører gjerne folk si at noe kan være "sant for deg, men ikke for meg". Stemmer slike påstander eller finnes det noe som er sant for alle, enten vi liker det eller ikke? Er alt relativt? Finnes det ingen absolutte sannheter?

Finnes det en objektiv sannhet, eller er alt relativt?

En relativist sier at sannheten er forskjellig for ulike mennesker. Om relativisten bare mener at ulike mennesker tror ulike ting, så er påstanden triviell. Men relativisten går ett steg lenger og hevder at det ikke finnes noen objektiv (uavhengig av mennesker) sannhet. "Sannhet" er det vi gjør til sannhet - verken mer eller mindre.

Det finnes ulike typer relativister. Man kan for eksempel være estetisk relativist. Da tror man ikke at "skjønnhet" og "stygghet" finnes i virkeligheten. "Sannheter" om hva som er vakkert er da helt relativt, og opp til hver persons smak. Dette er nok en ganske vanlig oppfatning. Man kan ellers være moralsk relativist og mene at moralske "sannheter" er relative i forhold til individet eller kulturen.

De som hevder en omfattende relativisme mener at alle våre "sanne" trosforestillinger er relative. Det er ensbetydende med å hevde at det ikke finnes noen objektiv virkelighet som avgjør hvilke påstander som er sanne og falske. I stedet er det slik at sannheten skapes av oss selv. Du skaper din sannhet og jeg skaper min.

Det er vanskelig å forstå helt og fullt hvordan en relativist tenker. Sannsynligvis er det fordi omfattende relativisme er selvdestruktiv (eller "selvrefererende inkonsistent" som det heter i filosofien). En selvdestruktiv påstand er en påstand som "sager av grenen den sitter på".
Her følger noen eksempler på selvdestruktive påstander:

- Jeg kan ikke skrive en setning på norsk.
- Denne setningen har ikke seks ord.
- Den som har skrevet denne setningen lyver alltid.

Altomfattende relativisme sier: "Det finnes ingen sannhet". Og da oppstår naturligvis spørsmålet: "Er det sant?" Dersom det er sant at det ikke finnes noen sannhet, så finnes det jo plutselig en sannhet, nemlig påstanden selv. Men da må påstanden at det ikke finnes noen sannhet være falsk. Så dersom påstanden "det finnes ingen sannhet" er sann, må den være falsk.

Når man påstår noe så stiller man indirekte et sannhetskrav. Det er uunngåelig. Den som hevder at "det finnes ingen sannhet" bør få følgespørsmålet: "Er det sant?" Den som hevder at "språket ikke kan fange virkeligheten" bør få spørsmålet: "Fanger det du akkurat sa noen virkelighet?"

Altomfattende relativisme innebærer bokstavlig talt en logisk selvmotsigelse og er dermed umulig å tro på. Og det mennesket som psykologisk forsøker å tro en logisk selvmotsigelse, kommer til å bli svært forvirret. Det er derfor jeg bruker å si at relativismen er som et løsemiddel i hjernen. Alt løses opp i en tåke.

Besvart av Mats Selander, 8. juni 2007
(Mats Selander er lærer ved CredoAkdemin i Sverige, og har påbegynt doktorstudie i etikk)

10 Self-Refuting Statements You Must Know

From: http://seanmcdowell.org/blog/self-refuting-statements-you-must-know

• “There is no truth” (If there is no truth, then this statement is false, because there would be at least one truth, namely, that there is no truth).
• “You should not judge” (This statement is a judgment, and so it refutes itself).
• “The scientific method is the only means of knowing truth” (But what about this claim to truth? If this claim were true, then it would be false, since it is a claim to truth that is not known by the scientific method).
• “History is unknowable” (If true, then this very statement would be unknowable. Why? By the time you read this statement and get to the last word, the first two words are already history. Thus, even comprehending this statement implies that at least some things from the past can be known in the present).
• “You should be tolerant of views not your own” (Then what about this view, since its different than the view of the one stating it?).
• “Language cannot carry meaning” (If language cannot carry meaning, then what about this claim? Is it meaningful?).
• “Truth cannot be known” (If so, then how does one know this truth claim?).
• “What's true for you isn’t true for me” (If so, then this claim is only true for the one who makes it and isn’t true for anyone else. If so, then why is the person bothering to make the claim in the first place since he obviously believes it does apply to others?).
• “You should not force your morals on others” (Is it okay to force this morality on others?)
• “I have freely chosen to embrace determinism” (If determinism is true, then nothing is freely chosen. If you freely choose, then determinism is false).

Thomas Nagel er blant flere som har påpekt postmodernismens selvmotsigelse ved å si at; Hvis ingenting er objektivt sant. Hvordan vet man da at postmodernismen i seg selv er objektivt sann?

The elephant in the room: Competing worldviews and religions can't all be true

From: https://www.summit.org/resources/articles/elephant-room-competing-worldviews-religions-cant-true/

In questioning the truth or falsehood of various worldviews, we risk a great deal. Whether we accept Christianity, Islam, Secularism, Marxism, New Spirituality, or Postmodernism, we accept a worldview that describes the others as hopelessly distorted. They cannot all depict things as they really are; their competing claims cannot all be true.

Some people in history have tried to get around the differences between worldviews by telling a parable. Perhaps you’ve heard it: Six blind men come into contact with an elephant. One handles the tail and exclaims that an elephant is like a rope. Another grasps a leg and describes the elephant as a tree trunk. A third feels the tusk and says the animal is similar to a spear, and so on. Since each feels only a small portion of the whole elephant, all six men give correspondingly different descriptions of their experience.

So no one is really right or wrong, you see—we’re all correct in our own way, with our limited knowledge—or so it seems at first glance.

But how do we know the blind men are all touching the same elephant?

The parable assumes that (1) each man can discern only part of the truth about the nature of the elephant, and (2) we know something the blind men don’t—there is a real elephant everyone is touching. The first assumption says no one possesses complete knowledge; the second assumption says we know no one possesses complete knowledge because we know what the elephant (or reality) is really like.

But there’s a contradiction here. On the one hand, the story claims that we—the blind men—have only limited knowledge. But if everyone is blind, no one can know the ultimate shape of the elephant. We need someone who is not blind, someone who knows all truth and communicates it accurately to us. [In Understanding the Times, we do not claim] that non-Christian worldviews are completely false. We can find grains of truth in each. Secularism, for example, does not deny the existence of the physical universe and our ability to know it. Marxism accepts the significance and relevance of science. Postmodernism acknowledges the importance of texts and words. Islam acknowledges a created universe. New Spiritualists teach there is more to reality than matter. And all five non-Christian worldviews, to one extent or another, understand the importance of “saving” the human race.

However, a major dividing line separates non-Christian worldviews from Christianity: what do you do with Jesus Christ?

Christianity views Jesus Christ as the true and living Way. He is the key to reality itself. Early Christians were known as members of The Way. All other major worldviews besides Christianity reject Jesus Christ as Savior, Lord, and King. Some deny that he ever existed. This is too big of a difference to overlook.

Who is Jesus? Did Jesus Christ live on this earth two thousand years ago? Was he God in flesh? Did he come to earth to reveal God’s will for us and to save the human race from sin? These are important questions. As Paul points out, Christianity lives or dies on the answers: “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Cor. 15:14).

The elephant in the room is that competing worldviews and religions can’t all be true.



Dave Rubin med interessant intervju av Frank Turek relatert til ulikheter innenfor diverse religioner og verdenssyn. De trekker inn utviklingen blant ateister med "woke"-bølgen og splittelse. James Lindsay (som var engasjert i den såkalte New Atheism-bevegelsen) har beskrevet det ganske tilsvarende da bevegelsen delte seg i New Atheism og Atheism Plus.









In a 1979 interview, A J Ayer, who had introduced logical positivism to the English-speaking world in the 1930s, was asked what he saw as its main defects, and answered that "nearly all of it was false". However, he soon admitted to still holding "the same general approach".

In 1977, Ayer had noted, "The verification principle is seldom mentioned and when it is mentioned it is usually scorned; it continues, however, to be put to work. The attitude of many philosophers reminds me of the relationship between Pip and Magwitch in Dickens's Great Expectations. They have lived on the money, but are ashamed to acknowledge its source"

    ~ Verificationism