Anthony Magnabosco explores strategies for addressing relativistic views of truth in Street Epistemology, highlighting the importance of clarifying whether truth is viewed as subjective or objective to foster meaningful dialogues.

30 August 2017

Having conducted hundreds of talks with people over the years using Street Epistemology, I'm increasingly encountering individuals who view truth in relativistic terms. If you want to be effective at Street Epistemology (SE), I believe you are going to need to know how to address relativism. This blog post will define the issue, include examples to highlight the problem, and offer suggestions to overcome this challenge. You will find little point in discussing someone's deeply-held belief until you first clear this hurdle.

When engaging with people in Street Epistemology-based conversations about their deeply-held beliefs, we usually tend to make a few assumptions. One of the biggest we often make is that our conversation partner thinks the word truth is synonymous with an objective fact and they will agree one should strive to believe true things.

Unless we specifically test for this, however, we may not discover the disconnect until we are minutes, hours, days, weeks, or even years along in the dialogue. As more people are beginning to converse with each other using Street Epistemology, stories about hitting this mammoth roadblock are surfacing regularly in the various SE discussion communities.

Why Should a Street Epistemologist Care?

If you are remotely interested in having productive dialogues with individuals using Street Epistemology or some other method, one should be extremely concerned when people think truth is subjective. It’s crucial that we assess how our interlocutor views the concept of truth.

It’s inefficient to engage with a person about their deeply-held belief if they think truth is subjective. One might even say that ensuring a person sees that truth is objective is the Street Epistemologist’s most important task; no additional progress can be made until you overcome this perception.

People are motivated to behave in certain ways because of the beliefs they hold. From choosing who to vote for to deciding to launch an attack with unimaginable destruction, the actions we take must be based on objective truth and not subjective realities.

Critical tools in the Street Epistemologist’s arsenal for imparting doubt, like John W. Loftus’ Outsider Test for Faith, for example, are rendered virtually impotent when a person holds a relativistic view of truth, as shown here in this sample exchange:

Joe: "Jesus is real because I feel it in my heart that it's true."

Anthony: "A Hindu woman who believes in Vishnu told me the same thing about feeling it in her heart. How could we tell which of you are correct?"

Joe: "Here's the great thing about it. Hindus can believe what they want. That's their truth! Just like I have my own truth, she has her truth, and you have your truth about God. We're all right!"

In a talk to the Chicago Atheist Society about Street Epistemology, I used a glass vase to form a shield around the underlying beliefs (represented by blocks) and gave various examples of things that form that barrier. Asserting that truth is subjective is one of those barriers, and there is absolutely no sense discussing the underlying belief until the obstruction of subjective truth has been addressed.

Interestingly, viewing truth as being objective is one area where many atheists and hardcore theists tend to agree. So if you've been looking for common ground with a God believer, your agreement that truth must be objective could be a great starting point.

Subjective and Objective Truth

Before we get too far along, it's important to address a few definitions.

A common definition of "truth" that I hear from many prominent atheists (and one that I also happen to accept and use) is "that which is concordant with reality." When I am having chats with people, I prefer to ask people for their definition of the word "truth" to understand their usage and as a helpful gauge to see how much thought they've applied before to the subject.

Please note that, while I have absolutely no expertise in philosophy, I am attempting to use the best choice of words based on my level of understanding to convey these thoughts in a simple manner. There are a wide variety of wonderful resources online if you wish to delve further into this fascinating topic.

Roughly speaking, something is objectively true regardless of a person’s opinion, bias, desire, hope, wishes, feelings, or preference. Objective truth is the same for everyone regardless of their physical location, age, time zone, prejudices, culture, upbringing, or experiences.

Something is subjectively true when one bases their conclusions on personal preferences and experiences via their human senses. Subjective truth is relative, can vary from person to person, is nearly indistinguishable from opinion, and is heavily influenced by society, education, biases, desires, emotions, and other factors.

Encountering people who hold this relativistic outlook seems increasingly common in my experience and might be fueled by a strong desire to appear tolerant of other people’s views. Or perhaps simply defaulting to “everyone is right” is an easy way to avoid the uncomfortable feelings that go hand-in-hand with addressing a belief that might not be entirely accurate.

A key requirement to a successful SE talk is to ensure that your interlocutor not only understands these distinctions but agrees that their claim is a yes-no, on-off, binary proposition: it is either true or not true for everyone. There is little sense continuing to discuss a person's deeply-held belief if they think their belief can be true for them, but not true for other people.

Don't forget that many people have never really given serious thought to these ideas, let alone are even remotely familiar with these words, so be prepared to give a respectful introduction to these ideas without coming across as condescending.

A Disappointing Example

Several months ago I noticed an interlocutor I had chatted with nearly two years ago started following me on social media. I vividly remembered our discussion: a college-aged Christian who said she had both evidence and faith to support her high degree of confidence that Jesus existed. After weeks of waiting to see if she would initiate another talk with me, I cautiously messaged to see how she was doing. After exchanging pleasantries, I asked if she would like to have a follow-up talk, whereupon she said disclosing her current views regarding God publicly might "break my mother's heart."

We kept messaging each other here and there over the next several weeks, including intense discussion on the various ways we might protect her identity during a follow-up interview. We eventually settled on using an alias email account for communication. Thinking that many people would be skeptical about the exchange, I filmed myself reading our emails as we responded back and forth during a planned one-hour interview, to capture my reaction and perhaps add some legitimacy to the interview if I ever uploaded it (with her permission).

As it turned out, my interlocutor's "big reveal" that she wanted to protect her parents from discovering was her liberal new view that everyone could believe whatever they wanted to and we shouldn't care if people are believing in things that are true or not.

After all this precious time between talks, after all the planning to safely meet again, only to uncover relativism. It felt like I squandered an opportunity to really help this person, and I was crushed. How much further down the road of honestly evaluating her God belief would this young woman be if we had first examined her truth valuation?

It is my hope that sharing this story here (along with my other advice) will help make amends for that.

Obtain a Clear Definition Early On

Once you recognize that the subject of truth needs to be addressed, one of the first things is to ask your interlocutor for their definition of the word "truth." Regardless of the amount of time they may have spent thinking about the topic, encourage your partner to really explore the ideas, and if necessary, work with them to understand how they use that word.

Be prepared to revisit the definition provided and see if it holds up to any examples that might be given. Commend people who are willing to tweak their definition of words when if they discover an adjustment is needed.

If someone is struggling to provide a definition of the word "truth," ask how their usage relates when compared to words like "opinion" and "fact," A simple question like "Is your use of the word 'truth' more closely aligned to a personal opinion or a hard fact?" can result in amazing progress.

I was once initially stumped when a person answered my question "What is truth?" by saying, "Truth is my Savior Jesus Christ," without missing a beat. If someone defines "truth" as a person or their God, the conversation should probably shift to how they first acquired this view and if only people who believe in a God are capable of believing true things.

You can also experiment by using the word "true" instead of "truth" when these types of discussions come up. Sometimes simply using the word "true" (and it's corollary "untrue" or "false") can bypass a lot of confusion and roadblocks that might come up during talks where you are discussing these ideas.

Conduct a "Truth Test": Armadillos and Tic-Tacs

I've experimented with two ways to quickly assess your interlocutor's view of truth during a conversation (and there may be more): first, identify something unrelated to the belief claim (preferably, something your conversation partner has already expressed an interest in) to use as an example, or be prepared to produce a small prop to facilitate a simple thought experiment.

Use an Unrelated Interest

The first way is to simply pay attention during the rapport-building stage to what your conversation partner is telling you. What line of work are they in? What keeps them busy during the week? Do they have any interesting hobbies? I once met a woman from Poland who was visiting her grandparents in Texas and wanted to see a live armadillo before she left. This led to a lovely chat where we briefly wondered together if the burrowing critters were egg-layers or livebearers. Fortunately, she agreed that it couldn't be both. When the talk shifted to her God belief and eventually, her view that everyone's position on the God claim was true, our earlier, innocuous talk about armadillo reproduction made for the perfect example to help distinguish the difference.

Break Out the Candy

Another easy way to test for truth is to show your interlocutor a small box of candies or breath mints and ask if they agree that there can either be an odd or an even number of full pieces of total candy inside the box.

Note: it is baffling how many people will actually respond with "Even!" or "Odd!" so take great care in how you form this question!

If a person agrees that the total number of pieces must either be even or odd, they have passed the "truth test," and you can proceed to examine their belief claim. If they say the total number of candies in the container can both simultaneously be even and odd (which does happen with alarming regularity), do NOT move off the subject of truth until you have resolved the disconnect. I once spent 30 minutes with a fellow asking a variety of questions to understand how he could reconcile that my little box of candies was holding an even and an odd total number of pieces. Our talk concluded with him somewhat sheepishly saying, "I'm sorry, but I just can't seem to give the answer that you might be looking for here."

Note: Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson had a near-legendary discussion on Peterson's usage of the word "truth" and spent the entire second half of their interview to try and clear things up. Harris took on a great deal of flack from listeners for his refusal to move past the confusion, but he was right to not concede: how can you discuss anything with anyone to any meaningful degree if you do not fully comprehend their use of this word?! In my experience, Harris absolutely made the right choice here.

Ideally, the earlier you can conduct your "truth test" in a conversation, the better. If your talk has already delved too deep into the belief in question, some people might intentionally distort their responses to your truth test in order to allow their cherished belief to withstand scrutiny. Don't worry if you forget or intentionally skip testing their view on truth because you can always conduct the test later. Just be aware that people may be more disingenuous with their answers to the "truth test" in order to prevent their belief from being compromised.

Common Phrases to Watch For

Whether you prefer to conduct a test to assess a person’s perception of truth using one of the examples provided earlier, or you wish to wait until the topic comes up naturally, there are phrases to listen for that could be an indication that your conversation partner views truth as a subjective opinion.

• “Anyone can believe anything and make it true…”
• “Everyone’s entitled to believe what they want…”
• “For me…”
• “If it makes someone happy…”
• “If it’s true for them…”
• “It doesn't matter if it's true or not…”
• “It’s my truth…”
• “That's their truth…”
• “That's your truth…”
• “They can believe whatever they want…”
• “Truth is what you make it…”
• “Who am I to determine what's true…”

This is by no means a comprehensive list but should begin to give you an idea of what to listen for.

What if Your Interlocutor Doesn’t Value Truth?

Street Epistemologists need to be prepared for people who may say that they don’t care if they are believing in something that is true or not. It was a real shocker the first time I heard this from someone, so here is a little advice to prepare you for this real possibility.

First, make sure that you have accurately assessed how they are viewing the word “truth.” Whether you use an unrelated interest like armadillo reproduction as a metaphor for truth or break out a visual example like a box of candy to conduct the "truth test," it should become apparent that your conversation partner can indeed make the distinction between subjective and objective truth. If you are still unclear where a person stands, ask them to perform the same test on you, and answer it directly. Then, repeat the test on them, and see if they respond with a more objective view of truth.

Second, don't panic. In my experience, very few people who say they don't value truth actually believe that. Resist the urge to laugh, act alarmed, or generate some other emotional reaction that might embarrass your conversation partner. More than likely they are saying such things because they haven't really given it much thought, or perhaps because they have low self-worth. Don't give up on them, and keep asking questions to help everyone involved to get to the bottom of things.

One of the simplest things you can do to see if your interlocutor really values truth or not is to ask if they visit a doctor, brush their teeth, don their seat belt before driving off in their car, or any number of other examples. Here's a brief example from a recent tweet I made to help illustrate the point:

Matthew: "I don't care if I am believing in something that is not true."

Anthony: "Are you content with your child's pediatrician holding that same view?"

Every so often a person will double down on their low valuation of truth. I was once video chatting with a woman who believed in Jesus because her daughter nearly died when she was born, but prayers in the hospital made everything better. Her epistemology for knowing God was behind this miracle was faith. When I proposed a scenario where the woman could board Airplane A that was inspected by a qualified crew or Airplane B that was not inspected but she could use faith that it would be safe, she surprisingly said that she would board Airplane B. However, when I repeated the scenario, but this time it was her precious daughter that would be boarding the plane, she chose Airplane A.

Simply shifting the person being affected from my interlocutor to someone my interlocutor loved helped reach a breakthrough: the woman had a low value of truth when it came to herself, but not the loved ones in her life. The talk could then shift to why a person's value of truth might be different when the individual in question varied.

Another way to assess someone's commitment to truth is to simply point to one of their valuables and proclaim that it is now yours because "it's true for me." Very few people are going to allow you to walk away with their cell phone or car keys because you've made it true in your mind.

I once used this approach with a young woman on a hiking trail that I had already built a great deal of rapport with to illustrate the point:

Anthony: "Could you be holding a belief that makes you happy, but might not be really true?"

Clara: "I feel like it's true to yourself and that's all that's really important."

Anthony: "Do you really live that way?"

Clara: "Yeah."

Anthony: "Do you?"

Clara: "I mean, as long as I feel it's true. Why shouldn't I find my truth in what I believe in and what makes me happy? Why shouldn't everyone do that?"

[long pause]

Anthony: "You know, I'm really thirsty right now, and you're actually holding my water bottle."

[Anthony casually reaches over and removes the water bottle from Clara's hand]

Clara: [laughs uneasily]

Anthony: "It's true for me."

Clara: "If that makes you happy…"

[short pause]

Clara: "You stole my water bottle."

Anthony: "I stole it?!"

Clara: "I mean, it, that is, you took it, it wasn't yours, it was mine."

Anthony: "If it was true for me that it was actually mine, would it make it true?"

Clara: "Well then you're probably just a little...that would make you a little off."

[both erupt in friendly laughter]

Fortunately, very few people will say they don't value truth and really mean it. Sadly, however, there are some people who really don't care if they are believing in untrue things. Unfortunately, I don't have a great deal of advice for dealing with people like that, except to perhaps move on to someone else, like this person's spouse, children, or other people in their circle who might be influenced by such thoughts.

We're in this Together

It is my hope that this article has demonstrated the importance of identifying where our conversation partners stand on their view of truth and provided you with the tools needed to conduct the "truth test" before examining a person's deeply-held belief. Being aware of this potentially huge obstacle (and how to maneuver when you spot it) should greatly reduce conversational frustration and make for a more efficient and rewarding exchange.

Remember that many people may have never given these concepts much thought, and are often responding with answers that just feel right. Be patient and work with your interlocutor by asking questions that carry out the "truth test" in a way that helps everyone better understand their views.

Finally, share those situations where you have encountered relativistic thinking with others in the various Street Epistemology communities and discuss which approaches you found effective or where you encountered a surprising new roadblock. Only by addressing these truth challenges head-on will we be able to overcome this potentially frustrating roadblock before we can advance to examining the epistemology behind a person’s claim.

Source: Anthony Magnabosco

The Street Epistemology Podcast and The Street Epistemology Blog is a production of Street Epistemology International. The views, guests, and topics expressed here (or not expressed here) do not necessarily represent those of the organization.

Street Epistemology Linktree