In a recent homily, Pope Benedict described the current intellectual climate in the world as a ‘dictatorship of relativism.‘ While the phrase was welcomed in many corners (like mine), it was challenged as disingenuous and incoherent at The Corner by John Derbyshire, one of the Corner’s resident atheists.

Of course religious belief is relativistic. Religious people say it is! Suppose I line up a Christian, a Moslem, and a Hindu, and ask: “You guys all promote a different set of ‘fundamental truths.’ How can I figure out who’s right and who’s wrong? What external test can I apply? What can any of you point to in the beliefs of the others that doesn’t square with observable facts about the world, or about human life?” What will they say? After a lot of babbling and pointing, it will boil down to: “You gotta have faith. You have to feel the truth within yourself.” In other words, it’s an interior, subjective experience. What’s more relative than that? There is no objective test one can apply to confirm or falsify statements like “Jesus was the Son of God,” or “Mohammed was the Messenger of God,” or “Vishnu has four arms.” You just gotta believe. How is that not relative?

Derbyshire is a smart guy, but he commits three errors here. One, he presumes that for a thing to be true, there must be some “objective test” that can “confirm or falsify his statements.” This smacks of logical positivism in its least sophisticated version. To the extent that Derbyshire’s approach is positivistic (and it seems it is), it suffers from the traditional weaknesses of the theory. For instance, it’s not clear whether Derbyshire’s claims measure up to his own standard of ‘testability.’

Second, Derbyshire clearly thinks that special revelation is a private, subjective experience. That is a hard claim to make given the manifestly overt and public nature of the revelation of Jesus Christ. Perhaps if he had limited himself to private, subjective revelations he may have saved himself the trouble of dying on a cross. Alas, he did not. It is fair to claim that Jesus was in fact not the Son of God. It is, however, an odd claim to make that he revealed himself as such in public fashion. The question of the veracity of his claims is a question for theologians and historians to answer–and answer according to the standards of their own respective disciplines.

What’s more, Derbyshire has committed a basic philosophical category error: he has conflated his epistemology with his ontology. Even granting him that there is no “test” that would demonstrate the truth of religious propositions, it is not at all the case that such propositions are in fact relative–i.e. subjective, personal, and true for some people but not others. Rather, it simply means that the access to those truths is limited to those to whom access is granted. But this in no way makes them true for only those to whom they have been granted.Derbyshire makes a great political commentor, but a terrible philosopher. For his own sake (and ours), let’s hope he sticks to the former.

(HT: John Schroeder)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson

Matthew Lee Anderson is the Founder and Lead Writer of Mere Orthodoxy. He is the author of Earthen Vessels: Why Our Bodies Matter to our Faith and The End of Our Exploring: A Book about Questioning and the Confidence of Faith. Follow him on Twitter or on Facebook.


  1. Insightful comment, Matt. His poor point doesn’t really hold up.


  2. Just came across this page … years later. Thanks for it. I am certainly on the side of Derbyshire here. For you to reject testability as the definition of truth, and yet for me and other moderns to make this in fact the foundation of the meaning of truth, we must be talking about different things. The truth you talk about is completely and utterly incompatible with mine, and Derbyshire’s. This is not however an error by him or you. We just mean different things by “truth”. The problem we have if we are not clear is that your faith-truth, or the faith-truth of a Hindu, or Muslim etc, is not the same currency as mine, and it buys different things. Your truth can’t help someone recover from a infection, for example, nor can it predict the existence of a planet beyond the abilities of our eyes to see, etc etc. My “truth” can’t provide answers to other questions, like who or what created the universe.
    You next say that by implication Derbyshire is making odd claims about Jesus. I hope you don’t mind my saying that many odder things are claimed by people more to your side of the fence (walking on water, water to wine, resurrection). However, that’s not your main point. You go on to say that the “veracity” of these claims made by or on behalf of Jesus is up to various types of people to answer “according to the standards of their respective disciplines”. By this, you can only mean that “respective disciplines” have different definitions (your word: “standards”) of truth (your word: “veracity”). Which is saying that historians and theologians have different meanings for truth, which is a fine definition of relativity and is in fact Derbyshire’s argument, although I would of course extend “scientists” or “followers of the scientific method”.
    We all know that science has its own issues with defining truth, but you are nowhere near converging your definition of truth with any mainstream definition of “scientific truth”.
    Your final point seems well argued but such an argument is only possible because you are prepared to accept a definition of truth which excludes the fundamental objectivity of my definition of truth. In other words, you are still talking about “faith truth”. Your initial ‘concession’ that “there is no “test” that would demonstrate the truth of religious propositions” is in fact the end of the discussion since beyond that point we are not possibly talking about the same thing.


Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.