Naïve Relativism

Here is a question I saw in the comments of another blog.

I don’t consider your belief in God to be wrong … for you. So why do you consider my lack of belief in God to be wrong for me?

Just consider the kind of mindset behind that question.

Basically the question is saying that objective reality means nothing.

Look at the question in a slightly different way. What if “belief in God” is exchanged for some other idea?

How about belief in the ability to fly? Or the ability to breathe under water? Or belief in being bullet proof?

Should someone’s belief that they can safely launch themselves from a cliff top be considered as wrong for them?

Or a belief they can remain submerged for hours without scuba gear or that they can face gunfire without suffering personal harm?

Whether someone believes in God or not makes no difference at all to the objective facts related to God’s existence.

If God exists then His creation, including mankind, is ultimately accountable to Him, regardless of whether His reality and our accountability to Him is recognised by you, me or any other individual. Therefore, if God exists, lack of belief in Him is wrong for everyone no matter what their personal preference may be.


16 thoughts on “Naïve Relativism

  1. I think you should go to the links that relate to the topic you were reading. Especially at the place you were reading it (I’ve been there), the goofiness and hypocrisy of the person who first was annoyed that someone said he thought religion is mythology…


  2. I probably shouldn’t say especially there…

    I signed up for a Christian blog somewhat recently.
    I got banned because I knew too many facts, basically.

    Did the people saying the Church and mothers shouldn’t turn in pedophiles get banned? No. You should see all the crap believers in God go for. (Yet I believe in God.)

  3. I Stopped Believing In God After Pastoring A Megachurch

    While we’re at it, I wanted to share this recently.

    This lady and her husband have made some music I like.

    It’s sad that they don’t believe in God [anymore], and that they did. If you look at the story,
    when she believed and was accountable, she had (group) untruth going on
    — at least as far as I see it. The view was transactional,
    but quite acceptable and much taught.

  4. You should see all the crap believers in God go for. (Yet I believe in God.)

    Sad isn’t it?
    Often professing Christians seem to be the strongest evidence AGAINST the reality of God.

  5. It is very sad. It’s a heavy weight, one that I think we have to carry… to understand how messed up the communication is. To really love truth. To pray.

  6. To really love truth

    I think that is the key.
    No matter how wrong we may be in belief or practice – if we have a genuine desire and love for the truth, we’ll always be open to correction.

    I believe that anyone who sincerely desires and seeks the Truth will be given the opportunity to find it.

  7. It’s sad that they don’t believe in God [anymore]

    When belief is initially based on a false premise, it can be easier to lose or avoid belief in truth.
    Western Christianity is so often based on “me/us” rather than focused on God.

  8. Yes, agree about premises. I also think it’s not bad if people struggle and maybe work out the kinks of faith. Maybe they learn and help others. But they weren’t allowed.

  9. Hurricane | Gungor [OFFICIAL LYRIC VIDEO]

    Oh Light | Gungor feat. All Sons & Daughters [OFFICIAL LYRIC VIDEO]

  10. I saw a man quote the bible in a committee hearing the other day. He was angry a woman had been brought to D.C. to testify. So he used Matthew to indicate someone could lose their soul. 16:26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

  11. It’s disgusting, like the devil reading the Bible to shame the wrong people. Then the man called our president by Evangelicals entertains (because they’re sick) them by lying about the woman (not to mention contradicting himself about her).

  12. ” Franklin Graham, the prominent conservative evangelical, said last year that Trump’s victory was the result of divine intervention. “I could sense going across the country that God was going to do something this year. And I believe that at this election, God showed up,” he told the Washington Post.”

    He’s probably right – but not for the reason I suspect Graham assumes.

    “God showed up”: not to bring blessings for America, but to give Trump as a judgement on the evangelical “church” who supported him.

    “The chosen one? The new film that claims Trump’s election was an act of God”

  13. The following is something the person you originally quoted said too.

    Whether the Bible (Old or New Testaments), the Koran, or any other religious text, they are all, in my opinion, myths. I assume at least some Muslims have stumble[d] across my blog, but perhaps not. So while I used the Bible as an illustration, I was not intending to limit my belief that all religions are base[d] in mythology to Christianity.

    Why did I bring it up at all? Just to offer a contrast between those who deny climate change[*] and those who eagerly embrace religious mythology. I also don’t think you need to be religious in order to believe that the Holocaust happened and to be embarrassed by the inhumanity that humans perpetuate against one another…..

    I am not a religious person in any way … But I don’t deny that there is much to be learned by reading religious tracts and that if it helps people make it through their lives, then who am I to be critical of them? But that doesn’t make me believe that the Bible is any more true than Tolkien’s Middle Earth, for example, or other fantasy tales. It’s great literature, but it’s mythology at its finest.

    He had included a picture of the first page of Genesis with the words “Once upon a time..” at the start (for the beginning). Considering that Tolkien is outstanding and that the blogger said the bible is literature at its finest, I am happier relating to someone like that than to for instance people who would want to make that horrible movie about “prophecy.”

    * He was responding to a set of fairly light questions meant to lead people toward sharing personal perspective on things anywhere from coffee to myth. [The holocaust topic though was brought up by someone else, to try and make him feel guilty (pointlessly in my opinion).]

  14. The holocaust topic though was brought up by someone else, to try and make him feel guilty (pointlessly in my opinion).

    Yes, it was not only pointless, it was a totally spurious connection.

Comments are closed.