The False Freedom of Subjective Truth
Philosophy as a whole has been on a constant state of decline. Many have abandoned embracing truth as truth and believe there is no absolute truth to be found at all. This is known as subjectivism. Subjectivism is a philosophy which teaches that there are no moral absolutes in our world and that truth is subjective to the individual. It stresses the subjective self rather than objective knowledge. To put Subjectivism in modern, eloquent speech, “There are different strokes for different folks”. This philosophy has immense moral implications that must be examined.
According to the Christian world view, mankind is entirely sinful upon conception. From the fall of Adam, man has been captive to what the Bible calls sin. Throughout history there have been many philosophies that have greatly increased sinful actions or what the secular world would call immoral acts. C.S. Lewis exclaims that, “Correct thinking will not make good men of bad ones; but a purely theoretical error may remove ordinary checks to evil and deprive good intentions of their natural support”. This error is subjectivism. To say that there are no moral absolutes is a danger to the entire human race and a tangible threat to the modern church. When there is no longer a standard by which we judge all moral action, chaos will reign supreme. Suppose a man chose to convince you the ocean was pink by placing a gun to your head. Would he then be morally wrong in deciding that this is how he will handle your doubt? Not at all if morality is subjective. It is completely arbitrary. You are then perfectly groundless to accuse him of anything. C.S. Lewis once said that, “Unless the measuring rod is independent of the things measured, we can do no measuring.” In other words, unless there is some objective standard by which we judge morality, then we are groundless to assume anything is morally wrong. The word “immoral” becomes altogether meaningless.
One of the major reasons many individuals hold to such a philosophy is because they want to break away from traditional biblical morality. The Bible, for many, is yesterday’s news and should be done away with. Unfortunately for them, they cannot escape the traditional morality they seek to throw out. C.S. Lewis has this to say about the subjectivist:
“He usually has at the back of his mind the notion that if he throws over traditional judgement of value, he will find something else, something more "real" or "solid" on which to base a new scheme of values. He will say, for example, "We must abandon irrational taboos and base our values on the good of the community" - as if the maxim "Thou shalt promote the good of the community' were anything more than a polysyllabic variant of 'Do as you would be done by' which has itself no other basis than the old universal value judgement that he claims to be rejecting. Or he will endeavor to base his values on biology and tell us that we must act thus and thus for the preservation of our species. Apparently he does not anticipate the question, 'Why should the species be preserved?' He takes it for granted that it should, because he is really relying on traditional judgements of value. If he were starting, as he pretends, with a clean slate, he could never reach this principle. Sometimes he tries to do so by falling back on "instinct." "We have an instinct to preserve our species", he may say. But have we? And if we have, who told us that we must obey our instincts? And why should we obey this instinct in the teeth of many others which conflict with the preservation of the species? The reformer knows that some instincts are to be obeyed more than others only because he is judging instincts by a standard, and the standard is, once more, the traditional morality which he claims to be superseding. The instincts themselves obviously cannot furnish us with grounds for grading the instincts in a hierarchy. If you do not bring a knowledge of their comparative respectability to your study of them, you can never derive it from them.”
As individuals attempt to separate themselves from biblical principles, the abstract principles of the truth cry out from within their own heart. The scriptures are very clear on this issue. For example, in Romans 2:14, Paul says that, “When the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature the things in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves showing the work of the law written in their heart, their conscience also bearing witness..”. According to scripture, the moral law of God is written on the heart of every human being. Philosophy has tried its best to steer away from this and suppress what they already know in their heart as true. Much like in wrestling, an individual must suppress his opponent, but in doing so, he must remain in contact with his opponent at all times. Therefore one can only pretend to have escaped what they consider “religious bondage” all the while the Law of God is being made known to them through their conscience.
What does this mean for the Christian? The moment the Christian Church no longer embraces objective truth, the foundation of the Church is swept from beneath it. Christianity is made up of creeds, confessions, and doctrines all professing an absolute truth. The Church is to be on its guard against such philosophies as Subjectivism. As John Calvin put it, “A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth was attacked, and yet remain silent”. As the secular world continues to try and liberate itself from moral standards, the Christian must remain vigilant to preserve objective truth for as it is written, “The truth will set you free”. 
No comments:
Post a Comment