What is the difference between absolute and relative truth? — Q&A with Alan Shlemon

All right, what is the difference between absolute and relative truth? Oh, that's a classic question. So yeah, I'm not, I don't prefer those categories, absolute and absolute relative truth. But let me just answer the question first before I address that. So generally, the difference between these two is that absolute truth refers to something that is true regardless of what anybody else says about it. In other words, absolute truth is not dependent upon time or circumstances or people's opinions. And so if someone's opinion changes, it doesn't change the truth of something that is an absolute truth. So for example, at one point in human history, there were people who thought that the sun went around the earth. Now, when they thought that they were mistaken, because the absolute truth was that actually the earth went around the sun. And so that's an example of absolute truth. It's a truth that is true regardless of whether anyone believes it or not, even if no one believed that it would still be true. Relative truth, of course, is different. Relative truth includes knowledge or truth claims or morals that are dependent upon an individual or perhaps a group, like a society or a country. And so relative truth changes with time or circumstances or with the changing of someone's opinion. So when I'm talking about this matter, I don't actually use the term absolute. I don't prefer the term absolute. I prefer the term objective. And the reason I say that is because when I think of absolute truth, or when I think of the word absolute, I think of things that are right or wrong, independent of any circumstance. You might be thinking, well, isn't that what absolute or objective truth is? And let me give you an example, before you get angry at me or think that I'm denying something that's significantly true. Imagine, so for example, if I were to violently push an elderly woman onto the ground, would you say that that's wrong? And I think we'd all say, yes, that's wrong. It's objectively wrong. But what if I committed that same act of violently pushing an elderly woman onto the ground, but it was because an oncoming truck was speeding down the road and I was pushing her out of the way in order to save her? So notice the same exact action. One is evil, one is good. So this is why I don't like the term absolute because then it could be argued that actually pushing the woman onto the ground violently when a truck was coming along would also be wrong. And I don't want to give that indication. I want to say, no, there is an objective truth. And the objective truth is that we should always avoid hurting an elderly woman without proper justification. And so in that case, no, pushing her out of the way, even though it might be violent, might be forceful, she might end up on the ground and injure herself, is still the right thing to do if a truck is coming down the road. So that's why I prefer the terms objective truth and subjective truth rather than absolute truth and relative truth. Although I totally get what the question is being, what's being asked there with the question. And so at Stand to Reason, actually one of the ways that we characterize this, and maybe if you've followed STR at all over the years, you'll probably know that we use the terms ice cream and insulin to describe subjective truths and objective truths. So ice cream claims are subjective truth claims. They are claims about preference, right? And the example is if I say, well, chocolate peanut butter ice cream is the best ice cream. In fact, that sounds amazing right now. This is really hot in my office. I've turned the AC off to not have any additional noise. So it's hot in here and I'm thinking, oh yeah, chocolate peanut butter ice cream would be amazing. But to say chocolate peanut butter ice cream is the best ice cream is a subjective truth claim. It's a relative truth claim. It's subjective because it's dependent upon me as a subject expressing my personal preference, right? And subjective truth claims or relative truth claims can be true and false at the same time, depending on who says them. So if I have a friend who likes Rocky Road ice cream and they say Rocky Road ice cream is the best ice cream, well, that's true for them. But if I say Rocky Road is the best ice cream, that's false, right? Because that's not what I believe. So a subjective truth claim is true or false depending on who says it and also depends on whether I've changed my opinion. So if I change my opinion and next month think that mint chocolate chip ice cream is the best, well then if I was to say chocolate peanut butter ice cream is the best, now that statement would be false because I've changed my opinion. So that's the way insulin types, I'm sorry, that's the way ice cream claims operate. They change relative to a person or an individual who's saying it, okay? But objective claims like an insulin claim is not the same way. So if I say insulin is a medicine that helps to control diabetes, well that sentence or that statement is true. It's an objective claim because it's not about my own personal subjective preference but rather about this objective thing called insulin and whether it controls diabetes or not, okay? And if that statement is true, it's true for everyone regardless of whether they believe it or not. So subjective objective or ice cream and insulin that's the way that we kind of capture it at STR, okay? And there's a ton of articles about it that we have on our website if you wanted more information on that.