What is the cost of following Jesus? Am I willing to pay it?

Whats with my bleak outlook on life? Actually, it is not really bleak, it really is what you fix your eyes upon.

Come now, let me think of relativism.

What is this relativism that I am thinking about (for now)? It is the idea that there are no unshakeable starting assumptions. From each assumption or core tenet, one can build up one's entire view about everything. Since there are no unshakeable starting assumptions, everyone's view is equally valid (i.e premises lead to conclusions) and equally dubiously sound (since the truth of the premises cannot be supported). How this is used then, is usually expressed in a form of doubt. And this leads to a sort of normative proclamation that all stances are equally dubious and hence, the correct (normative) stance would be to either take no stance or to suspend taking a stance (indefinitely, it would seem).

I think several things have to be scrutinised. I think, I grant the validity of the above argument (I didn't actually lay it out exactly but yknow what i mean) though perhaps some people might wanna attack it.

Firstly, whether all assumptions are equally true or untrue. Is it objective, probabilistic or totally subjective? Perhaps it can be given that if you doubt hard enough, everything can be doubted (maybe the cogito is). But is the standard for knowledge/truth that it must survive radical doubt? In the case for Christianity, several evidences that the Christian appeals to seems pretty uncontentious, that Jesus was a historical person, that he did what is recorded that he did. That the earth exists and has life. Etc. Surely you can argue that these can be wrong, but then you would have to do research. And if you can prove something wrong, well done, new knowledge. Not just a wholesale dismissal of all positions or a wholesale watering down. Even if you prove something less likely would be better than a wholesale dismissal. Just writing things off almost a priori seems lazy more than critical.

The second point is actually a gripe against deconstructivist movements. Of course its easy to tear things down. What are you proposing in lieu? Huh? That nothing can be said for certain?? The point is, (indefinite) suspension of belief is not practical. Let us say that you are to suspend belief as to whether vaccines actually cause autism. So you do not act to vaccinate your child. You are actually taking an action through inaction. A more radical example would be you do not know whether which food has a better nutritional value. Assume that you want to eat food with a better nutritional value. Inaction would lead you to starve. The fact is that if philosophy or thought is to inform life, life requires action. Perhaps one way out would be to follow something like Hume and say you do not know for sure but you just act according to the passions or something like that. Surely there is a better way, to live according to reason. Even if there is no certainty, actions can be taken following reason

Thirdly, relativism applied to itself. This is the normal boring argument that if everything is relative, wouldn't one have to suspend judgement on the truth of relativism? For if relativism weren't true, it wouldn't make sense to act according to it. I think this is quite self evident?