ABSTRACT
Today’s quarrels stir up yesterday’s quarrels. Current debates over relativism occasion a re-run of past debates over the truth of religion. Much of past theological debate concerned, not only the truth of God’s existence, but also the alleged consequences of unbelief, or the consequences of belief in highly subjective or individualistic forms of religion. Thus the debate implicated questions of social order. The theme of “antinomianism,” or the rejection of institutional constraints, played a central role. There is a clear analogy between the old charge of antinomianism and the endlessly repeated accusation by philosophers today that relativism implies that “anything goes.” Relativism, too, is seen as a threat to society and rationality. In order to subject this portrayal of relativism to critical scrutiny a modern definition of relativism (proposed by Paul Boghossian) is placed in its historical context by appeal to the work of Locke, Hume and Reid. The conclusion is that the definition is untenable. Its use is driven by polemical concerns and inaccuracies which merely serve to mask metaphysical absolutism and obscurantism. Finally, the possibility is explored that there might be a third way between relativism and absolutism. This escape route is also shown to be untenable.
