Who hasn't heard of Einstein's theory of Relativity and who hasn't heard of the expression, "all things are relative?" Many are completely unaware that moral relativism actually segued from Einstein's theory of Relativity. Although Einstein had no idea that this concept of relativism would come from his theory, his theory actually formed the foundation of relativism in the culture just as the cold wind of other atheistic philosophies such as Darwinism, Freudianism, and Marxism were taking hold. They all went hand and hand as orthodox Christianity was pushed out and lost its influence over the culture and in the minds of so many people. When we think of relativism, we think immediately of what's right for you may not be right for me. When we think this way we are engaging in subjectivism, not objective Truth. Relativism is popular with anyone who does not believe in objective truth or absolute truth and it is actually quite trendy. The problem that remains, however, is that objective Truth does not change whether someone wants to believe it or not and unfortunately, their belief that objective Truth can not be known, creates a great danger for them. They become like a ship with no anchor or rudder, subjected to all kinds of philosophical winds that come their way leaving them at the mercy of those winds that are not moving them in the right direction. Unfortunately, they will not reach the right destination.
So how did Einstein's theory translate into relativism? Certainly no one would consider that the equation of Einstein's, E=mc2 and his world of subatomic matter would move from the realm of physics into the realm of philosophy. This theory of Einstein's, which is the energy that is latent within matter is equal to the mass itself times the speed of light (186,000 miles per second) squared, certainly could not be categorized with the spiritual side of man and his morality, or lack thereof. As Einstein grappled over and over with the properties of space, his ability to think deeply and his ability to concentrate for hours on end in a quiet room led him to his special theory of relativity. If it had not been for Einstein's intellectual curiosity and deep thinking skills, we would not be able to touch on quantum mechanics. Surprisingly, many thought he had an intellectual disability due to his extremely slow pace at learning. Einstein explained this as his desire to contemplate and think more deeply about things. His imaginative mind unfolded for us the realm of the unknown; his special relativity in 1905 showed us that length, mass, velocity, and time are relative to the velocity of the observers. These 4 dimensions of space that exist on a continuum gave us Einsteins's special theory of relativity in 1915 revealing that there is no distinction between time and space (Einstein, however, was pondering a glimpse of Eternity). And so this is how relativism happened: just as all things were relative in Einstein's world, so too did all things become relative in the culture as many were talking about this new discovery. But moving from the realm of relativity in physical properties to moral relativity required a quantum leap in man's thinking. How can the tangibles compare to the intangibles such as love, kindness, and peace? Perhaps because Einstein's mathematic equation resulted in massive destruction from the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima leaving so many human casualties (collateral damage). So, in the minds of many, relativity became relativism and "there is no doubt that relativism is one of the prevailing thought modes of our society" (Breese 111). Consider what Paul Johnson, the historian, wrote in Modern Times,
"At the beginning of the 1920s the belief began to circulate, for the first time at
a popular level, that there were no longer any absolutes: of time and space, of good and evil, of knowledge, above all of value. Mistakenly but perhaps inevitably, relativity become confused with relativism. No one was more distressed than Einstein by this public misapprehension. He was bewildered by the relentless publicity and error which his work seemed to promote (4). The emergence of Einstein as a world figure in 1919 is a striking illustration of the dual impact of great scientific innovators on mankind. They change our perception of the physical world and increase our mastery of it. But they also change our ideas. The second effect is often more radical than the first. The scientific genius impinges on humanity, for good or ill, far more than any statesman or warlord. Galileo's empiricism created the ferment of natural philosophy in the seventeenth century which adumbrated the scientific and industrial revolutions. Newtonian physics formed the framework of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, and so helped to bring modern nationalism and revolutionary politics to birth. Darwin's notion of the survival of the fittest was a key element both in the Marxist concept of class warfare and of the racial philosophies which shaped Hitlerism. Indeed the political and social consequences of Darwinian ideas have yet to work themselves out, as we shall see. So, too, the public response to relativity was one of the principal formative influences on the course of twentieth-century history. It formed a knife, inadvertently wielded by its author, to help cut society adrift from its traditional moorings in the faith and morals of Judeo-Christian culture" (5).
Even though relativism never entered Einstein's mind when developing his theory and was not his intent, far too many people misinterpreted his theory of relativity as "all things are relative" as though they had discovered something new along with relativity; "all things are relative" has absolutely nothing to do with laboratory physics. Even so, this prevailing thought moved into the human domaine, "thus was created the era in which absolutes faded and eventually disappeared in the minds of many and in which relativism became the prevailing spirit of thought and action" (Breese 112). It is important to note that in the beginning of the discovery of Einstein's theory of relativity, Darwinism had taken hold in the culture with "near universality" and many saw evolution as the future: out with the old, in with the new. So, all the old principles, truths, and standards no longer applied and were irrelevant. The old prudish, immature Victorian model no longer was the norm; natural selection was seen as hip moving us along into a bright future. Nothing was sacred, absolute, secure, or immovable, all was open to subjective reinterpretation. Add to this the other cold wind of Marxism that was coming on strong in the Soviet Union and other nations as well, including the intellectuals in the West that were advocating for social change and a new global revolution even though, "the unsuspecting nations of earth thought little of the Russian Revolution and its possible consequences" (ibid). Once again Paul Johnson articulates the same sentiment,
"Marx, Freud, Einstein all conveyed the same message to the 1920s: the world was not what it seemed. The senses, whose empirical perceptions shaped our ideas of time and distance, right and
wrong, law and justice, and the nature of man's behavior in society, were not to be trusted. Moreover, Marxist and Freudian analysis combined to undermine, in their different ways, the highly developed sense of personal responsibility, and of duty towards a settled and objectively true moral code, which was at the centre of nineteenth-century European civilization. The impression people derived from Einstein, of a universe in which all measurements of value were relative, served to confirm this vision-which both dismayed and exhilarated-of moral anarchy" (Modern Times 11).
What emerged from this was a battle cry for a new revolution around the world as the people were galvanized into believing the convictions of Marxist doctrine that would bring salvation to many. Government was god and people owed their life to the god of government. These anarchists promised that a new revolution had began and in a short time, everything would be transformed. All this occurred simultaneously as Julius Wellhausen's "higher criticism" and liberal religious philosophies were entering the church and so the gospel of Jesus Christ was substituted with a cry for social change. The church's mission was no longer to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and eternal life, but rather preach the gospel of social transformation because the social structure of the world needed change. The galvanized people crying for change were all running with relativism as this became fashionable and trendy even though the phrase had nothing to do with physics or chemistry. One could easily argue here the stupidity of man and his "irrational exuberance" (one of Alan Greenspan's delightful phrases), giving little though to the meaning of words and concepts but instead as Breese points out, "it was a play on words, a twist of an expression that thereby lent plausibility to those who felt constrained to use the words of the time" (114). Imagine in the circles of academia, on the streets, and at dinner parties everywhere the expression "all things are relative." How quickly it was socially applied to every aspect of culture, "they all insisted that just as things were relative to one another in Einstein's universe, so also were all relationships within the culture relative, not to an absolute law but to an inabsolute one another. Relativism became king, and a twisted version of Einstein's views joined the pantheon of ideas that rules from the grave" (ibid). The worst of all these relativisms is of course moral relativism which moved inexorably to undermine the moral fabric and foundation in the Judeo-Christian culture.
Moral relativism is not only absurd, it is impossible due in large part to the very conscience that God has given man. The conscience that rings a bell and warns us when we are going in the wrong direction, that brings guilt to our soul when we have done something wrong, that warns us when we have transgressed against another, that lets us know when we have broken the law, and that also leads us down the straight and narrow. Unfortunately, despite the fact that man has God's law written in his heart he destroys it by not listening to it and so his conscience is no longer effective, "My spirit shall not always strive with man" (Genesis 6:3) and "even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind" (Roman 1:28). Without morals and ethics we are left with very little light in the darkness, "the mind of the rational human being cannot long retain sanity in a situation where moral guidelines have disappeared" (Breese 114). Most sensible people know that a nation and a society must be ruled with civil laws or guidelines (boundaries) to keep things in order and running smoothly. This is why God placed the ten commandments in the hands of Moses. If man and society is to continue and move in the right direction, there has to be moral and ethical guidelines in place in which man is held accountable, otherwise it is a mad-max world taken over by the black market and corruption. Greed take precedence, mass murder is a daily occurrence, and society collapses and anarchy takes over and thus enters the demise of that society or nation.
Today in our democracy, secular society has ignored God's law (the 10 commandments) for it is "too tough, too religious, inapplicable, and the like" (Breese 116) and so they have placed in writing written documents which the consensus has agreed upon: The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Magna Carter, all in an attempt to define what is legal and what is not. These rules of conduct are certainly beneficial, no one can argue that, and it certainly works for those who operate within the law and are obedient to it, but what many have failed to realize is that you cannot legislate morality or obedience, for it does not change the hearts of human beings. In a democracy, we hope that all people will obey the law, but what happens when the society is taken over by self-serving, reprobate, rebellious, and violent people? The end result is a mad max world where society crumbles and democracy is no longer efficacious. When the philosophy of moral relativism enters the minds of many, who is to say what is right and what is wrong and so people decide to do what they want and this is when democracy breaks down. It is no longer effective in stabilizing a society because people no longer obey the law and they no longer heed their consciences.
Breese points out five degrees of ethical and moral systems available to man, from the highest of ethics and morality or most sane and civil, to the lowest system which comes in the form of complete depravity and they are as follows:
- Biblical Morality. This is the highest order which creates the most sane and functioning society, for when all people cooperate and care about one another, all benefit, not just one. Exodus 20: 1-17 lays out the basis of civil law. They are a guide for not only our survival, but sanity as well. Secular society as I mentioned above has largely ignored this law as being too religious, too restrictive, and too biased.
- Consensus Morality. As mentioned above, this would include The Constitution and The Bill of Rights currently. By these official documents it is agreed that certain things are legal and others are not, but even so, within these documents are grey areas which are now being determined by activist judges (in some of the highest levels of judicial branches, i.e. Supreme Court) that are adjudicating rather than accurately interpreting the Law. This "democracy" also will break down if the majority of the people become rebellious, self-seeking, or unreasonable, "we are now in the midst of discovering that democracy and its attendant laws are insufficient to control a people who become increasingly perverse" (Breese 116). When moral relativism enters the minds of so many, a democracy breaks down. As a result, democracy is only temporarily expedient because "the Divine law behind democracy has been eroded and then disappears" (117). As Breese so eloquently points out that no matter how deep a national consensus is, it is still "a free-standing arrangement."
- Pragmatism. This is highly individualistic and so morality becomes a matter of personal expression or whatever works best for the individual without any regard towards others around them, "under pragmatism, the citizens of a progressively weak nation give themselves more and more to doing the thing that is practical, advantageous, or personally profitable" (117). Always looking out for "number one" they show less and less concerns for others and if they show interest in others, it is only superficial and selfish, certainly not sincere and selfless. This results in an increasingly fragmented society or as Breese says, "atomized." The disunity is very evident today but it is still "possible for a society to limp along even when most of its people live for personal, rather than public, advantage" (117).
- Hedonism. Very much like pragmatism, but sinking into a deeper level of depravity where individuals seek pleasure in the form of personal indulgence such as sexual fulfillment and lust committing violent acts of rape and sodomy, committing adultery in the form of extra-martial affairs, committing sex acts like orgies with multiple partners, experimenting sex acts with people of the same sex, and even with animals in the form of bestiality as an "alternative lifestyle." Hedonism also takes the form of addiction to drugs of all kinds. Simply put, the passions of humankind take over, "a society of hedonism is experiencing its final form of existence before it passes into a bottom-of-the-pit situation where survival is impossible" (118). This type of society borders on dysfunctional and very little decency is left.
- Anarchy. This is the end of the line. It is the "reductio ad absurdum of moral relativism........no perceptive person will ignore the growing evidence in our time of emergent anarchy in one or another increasingly dangerous places in our world" (118). If murder, rape, and lying to incriminate another is relative, then how is that not morally different than say, love, kindness, and altruism. If all things are relative, where does this leave us tomorrow? For soon, there shall not even be a tomorrow. Only the overly optimistic would believe that.
Despite the fact that moral relativism came from Einstein's theory of relativity, Einstein believed in God. He had respect for God and was an honest Jewish theist. He is quoted as saying, "God is subtle, but He is not malicious" and "God does not play dice with the universe." He knew God was in charge of the vast unknown even as he discovered a mathematical equation of quantum mechanics. In Joseph Fletcher's book, Situation Ethics, he asks the reader, "what is right?" and "what is wrong?" in an example of a woman held in a concentration camp whose only way of getting home to her family was to get pregnant. So, she seduces a Nazi guard to achieve her objective of getting pregnant. She justifies her action, even though it's adultery, to get home to her husband and children by having another man's child. Fletcher insisted in his book that her decision was a higher act of love and righteousness or morality, so who is to say what is right and what is wrong? He concludes that in morality there are no absolutes. The outcome of this was profound as situational ethics gave a degree of theological legitimacy and so the church ran with the idea. But Breese points out the problem with this kind of thinking: "nature is a far more fixed and unchangeable thing than many are willing to admit" and that "the influence of Darwin had caused the world to believe in a natural universe that is dynamic and emerging, one that leaves behind old principles and forever seeks new ones" (120). Nature is not Relative. It is unaffected by displays of emotions that move people to show mercy or even make an incorrect judgment call as their emotions are manipulated. The laws of man may be flexible but the laws of nature are not. You can not tailgate a person without ramming their back bumper should you both have to stop suddenly because a deer jumped out. The simple law of physics will deny the reality that you will cause a rear-end collision. The same goes for speeding around a curve that sets a speed limit for 35 mph. You can go 55 mph but a car with a certain weight, traveling at a certain speed, will turn over making the driver dead, "absolutely in an absolute grave" (121). The same law of nature applies to homosexuality which is a perversion of the natural order of things. You can not defy the natural order of things or alter the laws that God has placed in nature without paying a horrible price. The consequences of homosexuality are numerous: AIDS, STDs, Hepatitis, etc. It is a simple absolute that only a fool would deny!
While relativism may rule in the minds of many today, relativity will ultimately rule in the end as Einstein's equation that set in motion the destructive force of nuclear fission will be unleashed upon the earth in the form of mushrooms. This holocaust will be the end of humanity and in the end, "their flesh will rot while they are standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths" (Zachariah 14:12) and "the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also, and the works that are in it shall be burned up" (2 Peter 3:10). As man continues to walk further and further away from God and His Divine Law, he will only suffer the consequences of going his own way. He will sink deeper and deeper into depravity by allowing his mind to be carried away by such subjective trivialities and philosophies of relativism that no matter how good, are not grounded in absolutes. His choice to follow the broad road will lead him only to destruction, ergo, he will not reach the right destination.
Quotes and paraphrases taken from the book, Seven Men Who Rule The World From The Grave, by Dave Breese. Moody Publishers. Chicago, Ill. 1990
Johnson, Paul. Modern Times. Harper and Row. NY, NY. 1983