Review of "Absolute Relativism" by Chris Stefanick

This small book (59 pages) is quite useful for defanging the common, if wrong, doctrine of moral relativism (which often, though far from always -there is a relativist right- ties to left-wing moral absolutism). “By subjectifying God, relativism sets us up as creators of God rather than God as the Creator of us” (p. 18).

The author points to Canadian law banning hate speech (p. 17) as setting up a dictatorship forcing feigned agreement rather than allowing true tolerance of freedom of religion. "The person doing the suing may have all legal fears covered by the state. The person being sued has to cover his own fees and has no right to face his accuser”. This, Stefanick writes, is “intolerance at its finest”.

Stefanick at two points in the book seems to argue for a sort of moral intuitionism (morality as “in our DNA”), both for children (p. 48) and adults (p. 40) -yet he does not point to numerous areas where adult moral intuitionists disagree with each other, or where children’s moral intuitions are wrong. Most of Michigan’s electorate supports abortion; there is no state in the Union in which a “life begins at conception” proposal could command a majority. The author claims relativism “has to be carefully taught to our children by the intellectual elite or forced on us by an oversized government” (p. 48). In my view, in agreement with the author, it is much better to stop searching in one’s soul for one’s morality and instead find the morality that the author of this universe desires you adhere to.

The single smartest point Stefanick makes in the book is that acceptance of Christianity requires a leap of faith -that is, one must act despite remaining uncertainty as to which action is best, just as one marries despite lack of certainty about how one’s marriage will go (p. 50). Just because there are so many different maps does not mean one is absolved from finding the true one, so does the presence of dozens of religions does not mean one ought to say any religion will do or (illogically, due to the numerous commonalities among religions) turn to atheism (i.e., there being no territory behind the map).

Stefanick is insistent that in order to be a Christian, one must have “conviction” -that is, evangelizing Christ’s gospel as fact rather than “mere opinion or vague theory” (p. 55). The author also points to the importance of loving one’s neighbor if one desires to spread the truth to them - “to share the truth about Christ effectively, you have to truly love people” (p. 57).

Interestingly, this book doesn’t contain one of the better arguments against relativism: that just as a person who denies scientific facts risk one’s own self-destruction (e.g., by falling off a cliff), so does a person who denies theological truths risks damage to oneself (e.g., having a bad afterlife, or even this life). The author does point out the Catholic Church accepts the true parts of non-Christian religions (p. 42), and does not believe every non-Christian will go to hell (p. 34), but this does not contravene the idea that one should evangelize Jesus Christ as “in whom God has reconciled all things to himself” (p. 43).

As usual in this Satan-haunted world, however, Stefanick presents rather weak arguments for God (e.g., that the universe must have a creator). The better arguments -e.g., that God is like Atlas holding up the sky, keeping his part of Noah’s covenant in dangerous nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries- are absent.

Stefanick ends with advice that once one has chosen Christianity, one is obliged to treat it (in my words) as scientists treat Darwinian evolution -that is, as a true fact about the world, not simply as a personal or institutional opinion.

All in all, a good book -I rate it 4 out of 5 stars.