So, everyone has their own truth then huh? If you believe something is true, does that make it true? Hardly. Forget about everything you learned in your public school education and go pick up a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word "truth."
By its very definition, Truth is not only narrow but is also absolute. It must exclude all falsehood. According to the definition of "Truth," the term “relative truth” is an oxymoron because something that is absolute cannot be simultaneously relative. Science and education involve the search for objective truth not subjective (or personal) truth. If objective truth does not exist, then I suggest that we close down all of the schools and universities and stay home, as reality would be reduced to mere personal tastes - I like chocolate, you like vanilla. There can be no real education without objective truth, only opinions.
In the completely subjective world of relativism, all truth claims are equally valid (no objective truth is allowed), i.e. my truth is just as true as your truth even if they are polar opposites. The relativist view that objective or absolute truth does not exist is philosophically absurd and logically untenable. Indeed, the statement that “there is no objective truth” is self-referential and self-stultifying. I find it both interesting and revealing that this illogical statement is accepted in university classrooms. The statement in itself declares an objective or absolute truth, thereby defeating itself utterly. A similar statement would be, “Everything I say is a lie” or “I can’t speak a word of English.” It cannot be demonstrated that objective truth does not exist without using objective truth claims in the attempt. In this sense, relativism fails the test of logic and reason. Indeed, in order for a relativist to even discuss the nature of truth, he must assume that there is some objective truth to be ascertained about the nature of truth. In the process, he is secretly presupposing the existence of absolute truth even as he argues against it. The only logical alternative is that absolute truth exists.
It can be adequately demonstrated that objective truth does exist without self-defeating contradiction. For example, if I were to have a kidney transplant, the doctor would need to know the truth about which kidney was being replaced (and my very survival may depend upon it). If absolute truth did not exist, it would not matter which kidney was removed. Similarly, if I were to go mushroom hunting, as I used to do in central Illinois as a boy, my ignorance about the existence of poison mushrooms would not spare me if I were to pick and eat the poisonous variety. The poison mushroom would make me sick whether or not I believed the truth about its existence, because the poison mushroom exists objectively - independent of my belief. Thirdly, when a witness is called in a court of law they are sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Out of all the possibilities there is only one version of what he/she is telling that would correspond to what actually happened. On the other hand, if absolute truth does not exist, there can be no true version of any event, and calling sworn witnesses in court makes no sense; in fact, no legal evidence could be objectively true, including DNA evidence, yet criminals are sent to jail every day based on the objectivity of legal evidence. There are many other examples that could be given, however, on the strength of these examples alone, one can deny absolute truth only at the expense of all human experience and rationality. It is not only illogical, but anti-intuitive to deny the existence of objective truth. Therefore, relativism fails the test of human experience.
Care to respond?