Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air

by Francis J. Beckwith, Gregory Koukl

"An extremely well-researched, intellectual approach to the problem of relativism and its effect on education, public policy, and our everyday lives." --Youthworker

Genres: Philosophy, Christian, Theology, Nonfiction, Christianity, Religion, Christian Living

190 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1998

About the author

Francis J. Beckwith is Professor of Philosophy & Church-State Studies at Baylor University, where he also serves as Associate Director of the Graduate Program in Philosophy and Co-Director of the Program on Philosophical Studies of Religion in Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR). With his appointment in the Department of Philosophy, he also teaches courses in the Departments of Political Science and Religion as well as the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, where he served as its Associate Director from July 2003 until January 2007.

Born in 1960 in New York City, Professor Beckwith grew up in Las Vegas, Nevada, the eldest of the four children of Harold (“Pat”) and Elizabeth Beckwith. He graduated in 1974 from St. Viator’s Elementary School and in 1978 from Bishop Gorman High School, where he was a three-sport letterman and a member of the 1978 Nevada State AAA Basketball Championship Team.

In 2008-09 he served on the faculty of the University of Notre Dame as the Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow in Notre Dame’s Center for Ethics & Culture. A 2002-03 Research Fellow in the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions in the Department of Politics at Princeton University, Professor Beckwith currently serves as a member of Princeton’s James Madison Society. He has also held full-time faculty appointments at Trinity International University (1997-2002), Whittier College (1996-97), and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (1989-96).

A graduate of Fordham University (Ph.D. and M.A. in philosophy), he also holds the Master of Juridical Studies (M.J.S.) degree from the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, where he won a CALI Award for Academic Excellence in Reproductive Control Seminar.

He has served on the executive committees of both the Society of Christian Philosophers (1999-2002) and the Evangelical Philosophical Society (1998-2003) as well as on the national board of the University Faculty for Life (1999-present). The 57th President of the Evangelical Theological Society (November 2006-May 2007) , Professor Beckwith served from 2005 through 2008 as a member of the American Philosophical Association’s Committee on Philosophy and Law. In January 2008 he was selected as the 2007 Person of the Year by Inside the Vatican Magazine.

Reviews

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Moral relativism teaches that when it comes to morals, that which is ethically right or wrong, people do their own thing. Ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups who hold them.” Relativism is the pervasive moral viewpoint of our time. To engage in any conversation or controversy about morality today means you will almost certainly come across it. The language of relativism means that it sounds like a tolerant morally neutral position, but Koukl convincingly demonstrates that it is itself a moral viewpoint and a self-refuting one. You may even discover you use the language of relativism yourself. Koukl outlines the philosophical foundations of relativism, three common types of relativism, the implications of relativism for society and across three hot topics. Finally, Koukl offers some excellent strategies for engaging in dialogue with the moral relativist. The book was first published in 1998 but it is more relevant than ever, as relativism has become entrenched in the language, morality and politics of Western culture.

[Alex Gherman · Rating 5 out of 5]

"La ce concluzii ne-ar forța să ajungem îmbrățișarea concepției filosofice a naturalismului? Poate că ființele omenești nu sunt libere cu adevărat, de vreme ce concepțiile despre spiritul uman care exclud existența unui suflet independent implică determinismul. Ce s-ar întâmpla atunci cu 'dreptul la autonomie'..."
De reîntors pentru secvențe sau recitit în intregime, am subliniat mult. O carte care face pavăză moralei. Steinhardt spunea că "pentru a fi liberală se cere ca societatea să fie întâi supusă moralei" sau că "morala e pavăză libertății".

[Logan Judy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cons: The authors are a tad too eager to tie critiques of Relativism to the virtues of hsrd-line Republican politics in general, and are at times paint with an offensively broad brush, such as referring to libertarians as "followers" of Ayn Rand. This eagerness causes them to make some unfortunate leaps in logic on occasion (usually regarding a specific contemporary public policy issue) and makes the whole enterprise more political and partisan than it needs to be.

Pros: The last part of the book, which is by far the most practical, really puts the nail in the coffin, and shows through simple interactions how self-defeating moral relativism is. It also gives readers a down-to-earth guide on navigating these issues in everyday conversations, something that's frequently missing from more scholarly works on post-modernism and other philosophical tenets connected to moral relativism.

While there are some annoying elements in the book from time to time, I really appreciate how the authors bring a really solid critique and analysis of this worldview to a lay person's level without watering down the message or being paternalistic.

[Scott Whiting · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book to chew on! I borrowed this book from a friend and quickly asked if I could have it so I could underline and write in the margins. The current mantra that truth and morality is an individual thing (not absolute) and that we must be tolerant of others beliefs about truth is effectively addressed by the following quote: "The principle of tolerance makes sense only in a world in which moral absolutes exist, and only if one of those absolutes is 'All people should respect others' rights to differ." pg 154. The authors do a good job in distinguishing between social tolerance and social approval. I addition to the issue of "tolerance" this book deals with the other hot buttons of today's culture: abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage, multiculturalism, and political correctness. I will refer to it often to gear up for meaningful conversations.

[Reader · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting. I would recommend this book to people who are interested in the effects relativism has on society. It gives you a lot to think about. I highlighted so much!

[Tim Baumgartner]

PART 1: UNDERSTANDING RELATIVISM
Chapter 1: The Death of Truth

As Kelly Monroe remarked in her book Finding God at Harvard, 'Students feel safer as doubters than as believers, and as perpetual seekers rather than eventual finders.' (20)

The death of truth in our society has created a moral decay in which 'every debate ends with the barroom question 'says who?' When we abandon the idea that one set of laws applies to every human being, all that remains is subjective, personal opinion. (20)

As some answer the question 'What IS good?' they end up thinking 'What FEELS good?' ...the tail wags the dog.
Instead of morality constraining pleasures ('I want to do that, but I really shouldn't'), the pleasures define morality ('I want to do that, and I'm going to find a way to rationalize it'). [Pleasure as ethics]. (21)

Think of the story 'Baby Garcia.' (21-2)
[Story of siblings having sex] (22)
['Artist' on trial--and acquitted in Cincinnati]. (22-3)

This stinking stew of ethical nothingness is the sad legacy of the sixties. Yet when our own moral philosophy turns us into victims--when our personal liberty is interrupted by random acts of anarchy--suddenly something like moral consciousness tries to lift its head. (24)

Ch 2: What is Moral Relativism?
[Two distinctions:]
The first regards what we mean when we say something is right or wrong, and the second deals with the difference between a subjective and an objective truth. (26)
The statements 'One ought not kill innocent people' and 'One ought to believe that Kansas is in the United States' are two entirely different kinds of statements. Both make truth claims, but they differ in that each distinguishes a kind of 'ought'--one the moral ought and the other the rational ought. The first suggests a moral obligation; the second an obligation based on reason.
There are two ways of being wrong [irrational & unethical].
Rational errors can be distinguished from moral wrongs in this way. Nineteenth-century philosopher John Stuart Mill pointed out that moral wrongs are the kinds of things for which punishment seems justified. (26)

Just as there are two ways to be right or wrong, there are also two ways for something to be true: it can be subjectively true or it can be objectively true.
When I say, 'Haagen Dazs butter pecan ice cream is absolutely delicious,' I have said something true, because this statement accurately reflects my personal tastes. Notice, however, that what I have said is not really about ice cream. I have not made a claim about an object outside of me, a half-eaten pint of frozen dessert sitting on my counter. Rather, I have said something about the subject, me. [subjective truth]
The ice cream doesn't 'taste;' I taste it. The experience of flavor pertains to me as a subject, not to the ice cream as an object. That's why when I comment on the flavor, I'm talking about something true about me, not about the ice cream--subjective, not objective.
What if my claim is not about flavors, though, but about numbers? If I say 2 + 2=4, I'm making a different statement altogether. As a subject, I'm communicating a belief that I hold about an external, objective truth.
Our goal would not be to share our feelings but to find the correct answer, because in this case we believe the truth to be objective or 'out there,' not subjective or 'in here.' (28-9)

...moral relativism is a type of subjectivism...moral truths are preferences ['It's true FOR ME [the subject] if I believe it'].
Moral absolutism holds that a moral rule is true regardless of whether anyone believes it...it can't be created by personal conviction; nor does it disappear when an individual or culture rejects it. [Some people believe Albert Einstein proved that everything is relative. This, however, is false. Einstein's theories of relativity deal with a number of things, including the problems of absolute simultaneity and the idea of absolute motion. Both theories of relativity (general and special) depend, in part, on something nonrelative. They are based on a fixed constant, the speed of light. Neither theory has any ramifications for the question of morality.] (172)

Relativism as a moral system is revisionist because it seeks to redefine what it means to be moral, measuring it by a new standard.
Classically, moral systems have has at least three characteristics. First, morality has been viewed as a supremely authoritative guide to action, trumping considerations of preference, taste, custom, self-interest, or individual fancy.
Second, morality includes a prescriptive code of conduct. It doesn't merely DESCRIBE a state of affairs; it DIRECTS how things should be. [not just actions, but attitudes and motives as well]
Third, morality is universal. If a specific act is wrong for one person, then it is equally wrong for another.
Eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David Hume describes the universal nature of morality this way: 'The notion of morals implies some sentiment common to all mankind which recommends the same object to general approbation and makes every man or most men agree in the same opinion or same discussion concerning it. It also implies some sentiments so universal and comprehensive as to extend to all mankind.'
These last two characteristics--the 'oughtness' of morality and the universal nature or moral rules--are important criteria. [Relativism] ...does not refine our understanding of what morality entails but rather rejects it.
...Relativism does not even qualify as an ethical system. We can prove this a couple of ways.
1) No Real Difference
What's the difference between a relativist and a person who admits she has no morality at all? There seems to be none. How does a relativist make a moral decision? He decides for himself whatever he thinks is best. How does someone with no morality know how to act? She decides for herself whatever she thinks is best.
How can we make sense of an alleged morality that functions the same as not having any morality at all? If a thing cannot be distinguished from its opposite, then the distinction between the two is meaningless.
2) Relativism's Moral Hero
Another way to assess...is to see what kind of person it produces. Given a particular standard of morality, the person who is most moral is the one who practices the specific system's key moral rule consistently. [See, for example, 'loving your neighbor as yourself.' Think of Mother Teresa. The practice of nonviolent passive resistance results in a Mahatma Gandhi. Perfect obedience to the Father in heaven was Jesus.]
What kind of moral champion does relativism produce? [One unmoved by others' standards are called sociopaths, one with no conscience.]
The supreme moral teachers of all time--Moses, Jesus, the apostle Paul, Buddha, Aristotle, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr.--have all condemned this view.
3) The Myth of Moral Neutrality
One assumption is...a place of complete impartiality where no judgments or any 'forcing' of personal views are allowed ['tolerance']. (29-30)
[Some try and 'play this card,' but is untrue. See example from Planned Parenthood. She imposed her view and even tried to pass laws supporting her 'neutral' views.
All laws force someone's viewpoint.
Moral neutrality seems virtuous, but there's no benefit, only danger. In our culture we don't stop at 'sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as [we] do--and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves,' nor should we. This leads to anarchy. Instead we use moral reasoning, public advocacy, and legislation to encourage virtue and discourage dangerous and morally inappropriate behavior. That is, if we haven't been struck morally paralyzed by relativism.
4) Our Moral Illiteracy
Kelly Monroe, editor of Finding God at Harvard, calls it 'American roulette--'Just Say No' and 'Just Do It' without recognition of a moral reality to decide which to do when.'
[A question was asked to an assistant in a doctor's office. 'Is torturing babies for fun wrong?' He worded it in different ways and she kept hesitating. Then she said, 'People should all be allowed to decide for themselves.' The author said he would NEVER want her in any position of public trust. If she awoke in the middle of the night to screams of a child being tormented, she would be horrified by the barbarism.] (34-5)

Ch 3: Three Kinds of Relativism
1) Society Does Relativism
Also known as cultural or descriptive relativism.
For example, philosopher Tom Beauchamp describes certain conduct of seventeenth-century Hudson Bay tribes as completely 'moral' to them but deeply offensive to the ethical sensibilities of European explorers.
[See description of grown-ups killing their parents as they became elderly].
Cultural relativism takes the differences in moral opinions between cultures as an argument for relativism over moral absolutism. Therefore, there is no objective morality nor any moral absolutes.
2) Society Says Relativism
The first type is descriptive, but this one is prescriptive, which tells how things ought to be.
Also known as conventionalism or normative ethical relativism. What is right for one society isn't necessarily right for another.
'Trekkers' [Star Trek] practice this form of relativism.
3) I Say Relativism
Also known as individual ethical relativism or ethical subjectivism, which is more radical than the others.
It is often characterized by the response, 'Who are you to say how I ought to live?'
Romans 14:2, 5 are examples of how Christians make personal judgments.
This third type is characterized by Judges 17:6.

Questions to Ponder:
-What kinds of things are moral rules?
-Is morality a subjective thing like taste in ice cream, or is it an objective thing like mathematical equations?
-Is it conventional, changing with our whims or our culture, or is it fixed and absolute?
-DO we judge morality, or does morality judge us? (39)

PART 2: Critiquing Relativism
Ch 4: Culture as Morality
In Folkways, anthropologist William Graham Sumner makes three observations to support his view:
1) Each culture has a unique set of moral values.
2) These moral values are generated by the natural influence of pain and pleasure as people seek to satisfy their base wants and desires. The values create a complex system of customs that reflect notions of decency, duty, propriety, rights, respect, reverence, and so on, and regulate culture for the general welfare. Laws are enacted as mechanical, utilitarian devices to enforce the most vital mores.
3) Each group thinks its moral values are right and the others are wrong.
Conclusion: Morality is conventional and 'moral instincts' are nothing more than cultural biases. (43)

Beckwith and Koukl make three observations about his points:
1) [Don't Eat Grandma:] Critiquing the first claim, they use example of the following: Hudson Bay tribes thought patricide was noble. In India pre-British, Hindu widows threw themselves on the funeral pyre of their dead husbands [suttee]. European culture said both were immoral.
[A closer look:] Moral differences often represent differences only in perception of the facts of a circumstance and not a conflict in the values themselves.
Facts are descriptive [answering, 'What IS the case?' A fetus is or isn't human.] Values are prescriptive, answering the question, 'What OUGHT to be the case?' One ought not murder.
Unjustified killing of humans has been wrong in every culture at every time in history; what has changed is the concept of justification. Hitler justified killing Jews because he considered them subhuman.
[Ex. Abortion turns out to be a conflict about facts, not values. Those favoring pro-life say fetus' are innocent, while pro-choice, while still valuing them, disagree on whether the unborn child is innocent.]
C.S. Lewis argues that a common foundation of morality underlies all human cultures. 'If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own [See The Abolition of Man]. (44-5)

2) Anthropology Versus Morality
[Non sequitur=Logic phrase for the conclusion not following the premises].
The only thing we can conclude from anthropology is that people have different views about right and wrong. This simple fact of disagreement on morality does not lead to the conclusion that there is no moral truth. This confuses the epistemological issue (the accurate KNOWLEDGE of objective values) with the ontological issue (the EXISTENCE of objective values). (46)

3) The Problem with the Elephant
Sumner says all claims of objective moral truth are false because we are all imprisoned in our own culture and are incapable of seeing beyond the limits of our own biases [see quote given in book].
See The Blind Men and the Elephant, by Lillian Quigley, which is both a pluralist and/or agnostic perspective. 'Each of us knows only a part. To find out the whole truth we must put all the parts together.' (46-8)
This view is self-refuting. In order to claim that all moral claims are an illusion, one must escape the illusion oneself. [One must have a full and accurate view of the entire picture--just as the king could see the entire picture of the blind men and elephant. Sumner is basically saying, 'We're all blind, but I'll tell you what the world really looks like.' This is an obvious contradiction.]

[Concisely: 1) It wrongly assumes each culture has a unique set of moral values; 2) Even if cultures differ radically in their basic moral beliefs, it only shows that there are differing opinions, not that no opinion is correct. It proves nothing about the nature of morality. 3) It denies objectivity is possible. But the only way to know that our cultural biases blind us to the truth is to have an objective and unbiased point of view.] (48)

Ch 5: Culture Defining Morality
People ought to do whatever their 'society says' to do [aka conventionalism or normative ethical relativism]. 'It seems to be an enlightened response to the sin of ethnocentricity, and it seems to entail or strongly imply an attitude of tolerance toward other cultures.' (49)

#1-No Immoral Societies
If culture is both the genesis of and the justification for morality, an odd condition results: If there were no cultures, there would be no morality.
[MY COMMENT: I'm not sure I agree when the author said, 'Thus if two people live on opposite ends of a desert island with no culture between them, one could kill the other on a whim and never violate any moral rule. I think there is some sort of culture established. What does he mean by culture?]
I do agree when he says, 'If there is no law above society--no external standard--then that society cannot be judged. [But who is the relevant 'society': the population at large or those in power? This ambiguity is a weakness of conventionalism]. What about the Third Reich [Nazis-they argued in court for legal positivism]?
In The Law Above the Law, John Warwick Montgomery describes their argument: 'The most telling defense offered by the accused was that they had simply followed orders or made decisions within the framework of their own legal system, in complete consistency with it, and that they therefore ought not rightly be condemned because they deviated from the ALIEN VALUE SYSTEM of their conquerors' (emphasis added).
But the tribunal did not accept this justification.
In the words of Robert H. Jackson, chief counsel for the United States at the trials, the issue was not one of power--the victor judging the vanquished--but one of higher moral law. The tribunal 'rises above the provincial and transient,' he said, 'and seeks guidance not only from International Law, but also from the basic principles of jurisprudence which are assumptions of civilization...'
Remember, conventionalism teaches that people have an obligation to obey WHATEVER their society says to do.

#2-No Immoral Laws
...there can be no such thing as an immoral law. Such a concept is an oxymoron.
If society is the final measure of morality, then all its judgments are moral by definition.
When reflecting on any law, it seems sensible to ask, It's legal, but is it moral? It's the law, but is the law good; is it just? There appears to be a difference between what a person has the LIBERTY to do under the law and what a person SHOULD do.
When any human court is the highest authority, then morality is reduced to mere power--either power of the government or power of the majority. If courts and laws define what is moral, then neither laws nor governments can ever be immoral, even in principle. (52)

#3-No Moral Reformation
Two problems here:
1) The Reformer's Dilemma:
Moral reformers typically judge society from the inside.
There are countless examples.
2) Relativism makes the whole concept incoherent.
A social code can never be improved; it can only be changed.
How do we know we have increased the quality of something? Only by noting that some change has brought it closer to an external standard of perfection.
[If we can't improve the laws of a culture, we can only make them different.] (52-3)

Ch 6: Moral Common Sense
Each of these concepts (moral accountability, evil, praise, blame, justice, fairness, moral improvement, moral discourse, and tolerance) depends on some objective, external moral standard for its reality and application. Relativism rejects the premise that such a standard exists. (54)

After gathering information, we draw conclusions we believe are justified by the evidence [a posteriori knowledge]. Science often employs this empirical method of learning. (55)

A Third Way of Knowing (Intuition)
To prove there are no square circles, we appeal to fundamental laws of rationality, like the law of noncontradiction. (55)

Intuition is a foundational way of knowing that does not depend on following a series of facts or a line of reasoning to a conclusion. Instead, intuitional truth is simply known by the process of introspection and immediate awareness. [We don't mean a policeman's hunch or an experienced stockbroker's sense that the market is headed for a plunge...[but] what the Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes as 'immediate knowledge of the truth of a proposition, where 'immediate' means 'not preceded by inference.'' [a priori knowledge] (56)

Intuitional truth doesn't require a defense--a justification of the steps that brought one to this knowledge...It's a truth that's obvious upon consideration.
As C.S. Lewis wrote, 'If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved.' (56-7)
...Aristotle's infinite regress [regarding what we can know through evidence].

Immediate and Obvious
[If we have pain in our hand, how can we prove it?] I may be imagining the injury, but I can't be imagining the imagining; for it isn't possible to think I'm feeling pain and not be feeling it.
We know our own pain--and all of our mental states--through the faculty of immediate awareness or intuition.
Basic math is another thing that cannot be proven but is known by intuition. [2 + 2=4]. 'Repeat the experiment? That's silly. There's no need to repeat it. The outcome is obvious.' Either you see it or you don't. (58)

[Reader2007 · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book. It's very well written, and everything is crystal clear.

[Charlotte B · Rating 5 out of 5]

eye-opening
probably the most philosophical book i'll enjoy

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helps foster clear thinking, by really get us to ask the basic questions and think logically.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very well conceived book. The authors present very sound arguments, but the language is sometimes choppy or clumsy. Overall, a great primer on moral ontology.

[Luís Branco · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best books I ever read on relativism Really great!

[Travis · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fairly basic and irrefutable answer to moral relativism.

[Jay Lloyd]

Sound thinking.

Give this book to any atheist you know. Better yet internalize the concepts and gently stand your ground with confidence.

[Jeremiah · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is quite possibly the most readable, insightful & accurate book on the issue of relativism written for a lay Christian audience in print; heck, it's also funny! Many times when I talk to my non-Christian friends (and for that matter, Christian too) some area of their thinking has either an explicit or implicit form of relativism to it. Sometimes I bring it to their attention and sometimes I just shelve it in the back of my mind to use to pray for them. This book will help the reader see the various forms of relativism more clearly in the different avenues of our culture. Any fifteen year old could profit from this book, both to help them to understand our culture, reach out to their friends for Christ & strengthen them more firmly in the truth.

[Dakota Stead · Rating 5 out of 5]

The authors simply do not leave any standing or grounding for largely held relativistic worldviews. The authors dissect the relativistic worldviews and give it an inspection to see if it holds water. They will point out large held beliefs in today's culture and most of the time dismantling the relativist's worldview by mere laws of logic. So the facts and the philosophical organs of the book are coherent and amazing but the book is also written very well. They do not bore the reader with merely facts and philosophical truths but they write it in such a way that keeps the reader entertained, captivated and interested. This book is one that I will definitely be reading again.

[Jason Boyd · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an amazing overview of the main issues around relativism in modern society and their problems.

The only downside is the majority (if not all) of its example are American, and so when he discusses laws, while they may have some bearing on us folks over on this side of the pond, they may not always apply.

when looking at the issue of relativistic morality in society today, this is your best starting point.

[Christaaay · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is written by two Christian Intellectuals who fairly critique relativism in the following manner: they represent each point by citing the perspective of top authoritative relativistic thinkers on each subject; they then critique the point using their own perspective, or that of top Christian thinkers on each subject. Very well done, and easy to read.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall I thought the book a worthy read. It lays out a well reasoned basic argument against moral relativism. The latter chapters that show the lunacy of a relativistic worldview were my favorite and clearly contain the seeds that would later become Greg's book entitled "Tactics."

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book hits the proverbial nail on the head. Sadly, it tends to creep outside it's intended points on occassion; but still is a good read for anyone thinking everything, especially morals, are relative to "the situation". The growing number of people espousing relativism is alarming at best.

[Alan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Koukl and Beckwith do an extraordinary job at dismantling relativism. While I was acutely familiar with relativism and its basic message, I've never read a book dedicated solely to refuting it. It's extremely substantive and sharply articulated. Excellent book!

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a subject matter all Christians should be aware of. Living based on truth & knowing how to hold oneself in a conversation when relativism comes up is important! This was a good basic read to cover the subject.

[Atchisson · Rating 5 out of 5]

The lynch-pin of the secular humanist wagon. A great study on that which all liberal arguments hinge. Understandning this makes it even harder to listen to them with a straight face.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Koukl & Beckwith interact with this subject better than any other in the genre!

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am investigating and researching the Emergent Church movement, which has embraced the post-modern mindset and all of the relativism that comes along with the movement.

[Vincent · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good primer on what relativism is and how it is in your life every day even if you're not aware of it.

[George · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book, very in-depth. Glad I finally finished it after starting it several times over the past few years.

[Sean McGowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great!

[Noah Dell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone should read this book.

[Luke Nix · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book! So appropriate to our current culture it almost seems as through it was written in the last month. Look for my full review coming soon to the Faithful Thinkers blog.

[Dr. David Steele · Rating 4 out of 5]

A deathblow to relativism. RIP