Augustine Demolishes Cultural Relativism with an Old Book

In early July of last year, results of a survey sponsored by the National Association of Scholars were released.  Impetus for the survey came from the recent series of business scandals that have come to light, including, among others, unethical practices by Enron executives.  At issue in each of the questions asked of those polled was what kind of moral education our colleges are providing their graduates.   According to the results of the survey, three quarters of all college seniors report being taught that right and wrong depend "on differences in individual values and cultural diversity." Only about a quarter reported their professors as adhering to the traditional view that "there are clear and uniform standards of right and wrong by which every one should be judged." 1

In the introduction of his penetrating study of our own culture, The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom described the atmosphere of American education, in which the view predominates that,

the study of history and of culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past, men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism and chauvinism.  The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all.  2

What these studies are describing is the growth and prevalence of the view that states that there is no such thing as absolute or universal truth.  This theory is commonly called cultural relativism and teaches that truth is defined by a certain culture or society and is relative specifically to that culture.  On the surface, this intellectual shift seems peculiar to our own times.  But a study of history and old books reveals that cultural relativism is far from relative to only our culture or time.   In fact, almost exactly 1600 years ago, a great theologian was writing in response to this very idea! In the next few paragraphs, let us examine a very short section from the book On Christian Doctrine written by Augustine of Hippo. 

Initially, it should be noted that this section comes from a book that Augustine wrote in A. D. 397.  He was one of the most gifted thinkers in history.  His theological writings became a standard of orthodox belief for many centuries.  In fact, for over 1000 years On Christian Doctrine was the classic treatise and textbook for all who would aspire to teach in the Church.  The aim of the book as a whole is to describe the correct methods and right approaches for accurately interpreting Scripture and to outline the principles for communicating the teachings of Scripture to others. 

The section below actually does not follow the main thrust of his treatise.  It is a tangent.  In it, Augustine is pursuing a point relative to the art of interpreting difficult or ambiguous passages.  Although tangential, in actuality, this small paragraph turns out to be one of the most profound portions of his book.  Let us examine it part by part. 

1. But when men unacquainted with other modes of life than their own meet with the record of such actions, unless they are restrained by authority, they look upon them as sins, and do not consider that their own customs either in regard to marriage, or feasts, or dress, or the other necessities and adornments of human life, appear sinful to the people of other nations and other times. 2. And, distracted by this endless variety of customs, some who were half asleep (as I may say)—that is, who were neither sunk in the deep sleep of folly, nor were able to awake into the light of wisdom—have thought that there was no such thing as absolute right, but that every nation took its own custom for right; and that, since every nation has a different custom, and right must remain unchangeable, it becomes manifest that there is no such thing as right at all. 3. Such men did not perceive, to take only one example, that the precept, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them," cannot be altered by any diversity of national customs. 4. And this precept, when it is referred to the love of God, destroys all vices when to the love of one's neighbor, puts an end to all crimes. (bk. III, ch. 14)

In the first sentence (1. above), Augustine observes that people who come in contact with other cultures and their various customs find it natural to condemn those customs as being sinful, not realizing that their own customs might have the same appearance.  We see this very propensity when we travel today.  In Japan—as a minor instance—it is considered rude to accept an invitation or a gift on the first offering.  Politeness in Japan means that even though you have come to a neighbor’s house to visit, you will meekly refuse the offer to “come in and sit down” at least three times before accepting.  American visitors brashly say “thanks” to the first offer, stride in with gusto, and confidently deposit themselves on the tatami.  To the traditional Japanese, this boldness is at the very least rude, if not plain wrong.  These varying customs appear so distinct to the peoples of each country and it is just these sorts of practices (and others much more significant) that can easily fall under the condemnation of one or the other.  Augustine acknowledges that this is indeed the case in a world with more than one society.

The “logic” of cultural relativism

In the next sentence (2.) Augustine describes how those who like to ponder such things will, upon seeing the infinite variety of cultural practices and the conflict between them, conclude that there is no such thing as “absolute right.”  He goes on to say that this line of reasoning further concludes that “right” (or “truth”) is just a creation of each culture.  Here’s how he traces the logic. It will sound familiar.

1.  Absolute truth (or “right”), if it exists, would, by its very nature, be the same across all cultures. 

2.  On many points, each culture differs from some other cultures in what it defines as being true or right. 

3.  Therefore, since there is much apparent disagreement among cultures on what exactly constitutes truth—there must be no such thing as absolute truth or right. 

4.  And thus, “truth” is relative to a culture or group of people and not absolute.

5.  Furthermore, truth, as it is classically defined, does not exist. 

This logic describes the position frequently referred to today as cultural relativism. 

In this way, Augustine is about as “modern” as a writer can get.  Not that he agrees with this “half asleep” method of thinking, as he calls it.  But he precisely defines the spirit of our own age and—as though he were a professor of philosophy at a college in the East—perfectly describes the common thinking of the common man in today’s culture.  When we see such similarity between the thinking of the past and the thinking of the present, we see the truth of Solomon’s assertion that “there is nothing new under the sun.”

Let us consider this logic for a moment.  It has a surface-level attraction to it.  It seems to explain the diversity of opinion and variety of moral views that we find in the world today.  If there is no absolute truth, then it would make sense that there would be such disagreement between different societies—and even between individuals within a society—as to what is true or right.  Aside from providing a compelling explanation for this diversity, if one abandons the idea of absolute truth then one also gains tremendous freedom.  Initially it becomes obvious that one is no longer required to sift another culture’s practices or beliefs through any kind of rational filter.  In fact, in a world that seems to prize diversity, the abandonment of truth allows for the full affirmation of all other cultures and all other ideas, especially those that are so different from our own.  Moreover, by abandoning the notion of absolute truth, one is freed from the relentless accountability to a standard that judges all of one’s thoughts and actions.  If I find that lying at work serves to ensure a promotion, then I may lie without any sense that I am violating a code of conduct that transcends my own particular social group or culture.  In fact, if I can find another culture that condones such behaviour I can assure myself that there is nothing essentially wrong with lying even if my own culture happens to condemn it or—as in the case of American culture—traditionally condemns it as corrupt. 

A world that denies truth loses all else

But these “freedoms” are not without cost.  What Western Culture has found as it has spent the last century and a half experimenting with this concept of a truthless world is that meaning—that greatest of all human needs—is organically joined to absolute truth like a fragrant flower to its life-giving roots.  To remove the plant while trying to save the flower is to guarantee the eventual death of the blossom.  So we have discovered that in a world in which absolute truth is denied, there is nothing that has inherent worth or that is essentially good, because all of these concepts depend for their meaning on some reference point that does not change. 

For example, giving my life to save a child endangered by an oncoming White Freightliner semi-truck carrying toilet seats is valuable and “right” only if I assume that there is something good about human life and something noble about sacrifice of that kind.  But we cannot establish the absolute value of human life nor can we assert that giving oneself for another is truly virtuous unless we believe that these are values that maintain their integrity no matter what culture encounters them. 

What exactly does the word “good” mean in a world that has no absolutes?  This was the great question of the 20th century.  It is the very reason why philosopher Albert Camus, author of such books as The Plague and The Fall, said that, “there is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.  Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.”  In the same essay he went on to state that, “it was previously a question of finding out whether or not life had to have a meaning to be lived.  It has now become clear, on the contrary, that it will be lived all the better if it has no meaning.”3 

Camus understood clearly what faced Western Culture when it let go of truth.   What or who decides that saving a child’s life is better than ending a child’s life in a world that has no known fixed standard?  Consider also that trying Nazi leaders for war crimes is a ludicrous enterprise in a world that lacks an absolute standard of morality.  On what basis can a tribunal condemn the actions of Hitler’s regime?  Isn’t it conceivable that, in the absence of universal or absolute truth, someone might assert that he was “right” in the context of his own culture?    In this way, one can see that morality becomes not the determination of what is true, good and right but rather what is useful or preferable or asserted by the majority.  Such freedom is perniciously expensive. 

Augustine was aware of such expense.  In fact, he summarily rejects the thinking that he describes (2.).   But his method of rejection is probably the most profound and surprising point in this study.  Augustine was a philosopher of auspicious stature.  Like a lion on the hunt, his mind was equipped with great speed and incisive force.  The most surprising thing is what he does not do in his response to relativism.  He does not point up the apparent necessity of absolute truth as we have done above.  He also does not highlight the self-refuting nature of the cultural relativist’s position, which is exactly the approach one expects him to take as a philosopher and theologian.  What is self-refutation?

Cultural relativism’s self-refutation

Consider that the logic of the relativist can be best summarized in the following statement: There is no absolute truth.  Look carefully at that sentence.  What is the nature of such a statement?  It is, itself, a statement of absolute truth!  In other words, the relativist says that the only thing that is absolutely true is that there is nothing that is absolutely true.  But if there is no such thing as absolute truth, then even the absolute statement that the relativist makes must be false!  That means that if his statement is true, then it is necessarily false. To assert this, is to destroy the very thing being asserted.  This is what is called a self-refuting position, and whenever a belief creates problems like this, philosophers realize that the position is inherently flawed.  Any careful thinker, when they see their position refuting itself, will bolt from it as though it were a termite-infested wooden footbridge over the deepest part of the Grand Canyon.

Augustine’s refutation of relativism

What, then, does Augustine affirm in response to the relativist’s position? Look again at the text.  

3. Such men did not perceive, to take only one example, that the precept, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them," cannot be altered by any diversity of national customs.

He says that people who reject absolute right, or truth, do not perceive something very essential.  That is, they do not recall that the Bible contains the command that however we would want to be treated, so we should treat others.  This quotation comes from Jesus’ teachings on the mountain, and  recorded in Matthew 7:12: Therefore, however you want people to treat you, so treat them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.   This command is commonly called The Golden Rule, and as a rebuttal to the relativist’s position it is simply striking in at least two ways.

First, there is the content of his argument. Augustine assumes that what silences the relativist is the straight fact that God has commanded all men to love their neighbors.  How is this a refutation of relativism?  For one thing, we can all see that as a standard of morality, the Golden Rule is not to be surpassed.  In one simple, elegant sentence, all of the many laws and regulations erected to shelter one man from abusing or being abused by another are ingeniously abstracted into a single precept.  There is no higher statement of morality.  As Augustine himself puts it, this “precept, when it is referred to the love of God, destroys all vices, when to the love of one's neighbor, puts an end to all crimes.”  If we consider various laws, such as “do not murder” and “do not steal”, we soon discover that all of these are capitulated in this one teaching of Christ’s.  Taken this way, Augustine shows that there is no culture that can produce anything higher or more noble than the Golden Rule.  Moreover, there is no culture that can refuse to aspire to the Golden Rule and long survive.  But the most telling point made here has to do with some hidden premises.

The second striking feature of Augustine’s rebuttal has to do with his approach, and is implied as much as it is said.  That is, by putting forward this teaching of Christ as the counterargument to relativism, Augustine is not merely repeating Christ’s words, but he is presupposing several things: that the Bible accurately communicates the teachings of Christ; that the teachings of Christ are binding on all men, everywhere because Jesus Christ is God Himself, and, as such, created all men; and, that since He has created all men, He has the right to command them.  Contrary to our perceptions, Augustine asserts, no “diversity of national custom” can alter the truth or validity of the Golden Rule.  There is no land, nor nation, nor culture, nor person that this command does not hold under its authority. 

As an approach, this is simply profound.  Augustine uses the Scriptures as his starting point! (Isn’t that amazing?!)  He does not assume unbelief.  He does not try to adopt a secular mindset as a beginning for his argument.  He does not begin with man and argue his way to God.  Rather, Augustine assumes the truth of Scripture and uses it as the foundation for his argument.  What is so remarkable about that?  Today, Christians seem to think that starting with the Bible as the foundation of a position is somehow biased, unfair or illegal.  We have this concept that there is a “neutral” field whereon we must meet those who disagree with us, and that to be fair, we must first demonstrate to our opponents that God exists and that the Bible can be trusted.  If they agree with us, only then can we bring “religious” concepts into our discussion.  This view is based on some faulty assumptions.  For one thing, it assumes that unbelief is more natural than belief.  But where did our culture derive this idea?  On what authority do we assume that atheism or agnosticism is the primal, natural, basic state of humanity? How is it that those who believe are somehow more biased than those who disbelieve?  Is unbelief really a lack of belief or actually a belief in a different idea?  If we examine these assumptions we find that their validity is suspect. 

It is as though we enter a soccer game (our theological discussion) only to discover that our shoes (assumptions) are of a different brand than our opponents’.  On their orders, we are told to go back to the sidelines, take them off, come back to the field, prove the rationality of wearing those shoes and, if our proof meets with acceptance from our opponent, then and only then, can we go back and put them on.  It is difficult to face a well-shod opponent in soccer when one is bare-footed.  But the big question is, why are their shoes unquestionably assumed to be acceptable, while ours must be removed and examined before the game gets under way?

Rather, Augustine shows us (along with John Calvin, Alvin Plantinga, and others) that it is proper and right for a human being to start with an assumption of belief in God.  One needn’t defend God or the Scriptures to the relativist.  One need not set the Bible on the sidelines when entering the game.  Rather, the burden of proof (as it is called) is on the relativist to prove the irrelevancy of God and the Scriptures.  That is why Augustine simply cites the Golden Rule as the counterargument to the relativist’s view. 

In this manner, Augustine is teaching us that by using the Scripture as our argument, we rightly uphold the truth of God’s word.  Augustine’s answer is in perfect line with the foundational beliefs that God exists, that He created every man, that His Word is absolute truth, and binding on each human being.  If these things are true, then it only follows that the best way to approach a philosophical problem like cultural relativism is to begin with the Scriptures.  As we do so, we imitate the example of Augustine, whose credo was to “believe that [he] may understand.”  We also join a tradition—as ancient as the church—of  thinkers like Justin, Clement, and a host of others who trusted in God and held His Word as the beginning point for all inquiry. And, finally, we imitate those noble Bereans of old who “with great eagerness, examined the Scriptures daily, to see whether [such] things were true.”4     —MWT

1. The National Association of Scholars. “NAS/Zogby Poll Reveals American Colleges Are Teaching Dubious Ethical Lessons.” Princeton, NJ., July, 2002.  http://www.nas.org.

2. Bloom, Allan.  The Closing of the American Mind.  New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987.

3.  From The Myth of Sysiphus,quoted in The Great Thoughts, compiled by George Seldes. New York: Ballantine, 1985.