The Challenge of Religious Pluralism

[Bob Jenkins]

by Kenneth R. Samples

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/.../crj0074a.html

from the Christian Research Journal, Summer 1990, page 39. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller.

The twentieth century has brought forth unparalleled challenges to the historic Christian faith. During this century, Christianity's relevance and ultimate validity have been questioned as never before. This assault on the central truth claims of Christianity has come from two distinct fronts: atheistic secular humanism and the growing climate of religious pluralism.

While secularism constitutes a significant threat, the issue of religious pluralism poses an even greater challenge. The technological advances of our century have resulted in a truly global society. America in particular is a nation of diverse ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds. Our nation is founded upon the principle of toleration, particularly in the area of religion. We are guaranteed the right of free exercise of religion. This principle of equal toleration of religion is so strong, in fact, that the worst name one can be called today is an "intolerant religionist." What has happened, however, is that our idea of democracy has been applied to ultimate truth. Equal toleration of religion has been taken to mean that each religion is equally valid (i.e., all religions lead to God). This is a fatal non sequitur.

People who argue that all religions are equally valid (i.e., metaphysically true) either know little about the various religions or have given up reasoning in a logical fashion. A cursory study of the world religions reveals the fundamental and irreconcilable differences that exist. For example, some religions affirm monotheism (one God); others affirm polytheism (many Gods); still others affirm pantheism (all is God). And this is just the beginning of the contradictory statements made about God. According to the most basic laws of logic (e.g., the law of non-contradiction), these different views about God cannot be ultimately true at the same time and in the same respect. Logically, the three world views could all be wrong, but they could not all be correct. Again, if we are persuaded that our religion is true, then we are faced with this uncomfortable state of exclusivity. But could there be another alternative?

Some have argued that applying logic to religion is false or misleading. They insist that ultimate truth comes only through intuition. Their argument betrays them, however, because they must first presuppose the laws of logic to even attempt a refutation of them (indeed, one must utilize them to even speak or think). This is self-contradictory. To divorce oneself from these self-evident laws of thought is to resign oneself to irrationality. For most people, this price is too great to pay.

Could it be, however, that the contradictions among the world's religions are only apparent rather than real? Could we attribute the differences to man's inability to grasp the infinite reality of God? The Eastern analogy often used to illustrate this point is a group of blind men touching different parts of the same elephant. The point is argued that people experience the same reality differently because of their differing historical, cultural, or philosophical biases. This argument has much to commend it. However, Christian philosopher C. Stephen Evans, in his book Philosophy of Religion, points out two weaknesses. First, it seems to imply a radical skepticism concerning our knowledge of God -- the point being that no one can really know God satisfactorily. Second, it does not account for the exclusive claims made by Jesus Christ (Matt. 7:13; John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Jesus claims to be the way, not a way. Christianity's belief in the Incarnation (God entering the world in the person of Jesus Christ) -- a direct and historical revelation -- is in an entirely different category than the speculative claims of other religions. Revealed religion is specific and understandable. If its claim to be from God and not man can be supported, then its teachings are authoritative and trustworthy.

Most people who believe the "all religions lead to God" are unaware of the insurmountable intellectual difficulties with this view. Therefore, the claim that one religion is exclusively true is often met with the charge that one is dogmatic, narrow-minded, or just plain arrogant. While people can act arrogantly and often do, to claim that one religion is exclusively true is not provincial or narrow-minded. As noted earlier, the only logical conclusion, in view of the multiple contradictions among the world's religions, is that one religious world view is true and the rest false, or that all the respective religions are false. As one philosopher put it, a world where all religions are simultaneously true would be a "cosmic madhouse."

Additionally, if a person believes that one religion is exclusively true because of special revelation, then his reason for holding to it is that he believes it is God's way, not his own. For Christians, it is the way of Jesus that saves, not our way. We merely repeat the claim made by Jesus Himself: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). Accepting and proclaiming God's way is therefore not arrogance, it is genuine humility.

It should also be understood that a commitment to the veracity of Christianity does not imply that every feature of non-Christian religions is false. While salvific truth comes only in Jesus Christ (special revelation), other religions may derive general truths about God via natural revelation (i.e., nature or conscience). In this way, differing religions may, and in fact do, share common agreement on secondary doctrines and beliefs.

The challenge and danger of pluralism is found in its subtle and tolerant claims. Secular humanism boldly claims that Christianity is untrue and misleading. Pluralism, on the other hand, states that while Christianity is true, it is not the truth. Pluralism's claim is not that Christianity is a false religion, but that it is a religion. This subtle teaching may be the church's greatest apologetic challenge yet.

Comments?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Great article. I am a subscriber to the CRJ and love almost everything they put out. I didn't care for the one eschatology a bit back, but that is typical for me.

[Peter Kirby]

This forum seems to be a catch-all, but I think that this would have fit better in Comparative Religions 101. The writer doesn't deal here with the approach of atheism to religious pluralism, not that all metaphysical religions are right but that they are all weak and that there is no logically sound way to pick one as true.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Piebald]

/ot Really tough call. When it's hard to decide where something should go (it could belong on either of two forums), I usually go with the poster's decision and leave it where they intended it to be.

[Bob Jenkins]

I really wanted to "lurk" as much as possible but I welcome the posts from various world views

Thanks Hamster

[Vorkosigan]

As one philosopher put it, a world where all religions are simultaneously true would be a "cosmic madhouse."

Thus, this is simply an argument from incredulity and not a real argument against a world where all religions are true. Since the author of this piece believe that miracles are possible, in principle there is no reason that a world could miraculously and simultaneously make all religions true. After all, the author of this piece is a Christian and presumably believes in the Trinity, a completely similar claim.

Vorkosigan

[Pilgrim]

execept that the trinity is not a miraculous thing. After all, multiple ontology occures in the every day world. take the dual nature of light for instanc.

[C. D. Ward]

Today @ 06:39 AM post located here
Pilgrim:

execept that the trinity is not a miraculous thing. After all, multiple ontology occures in the every day world. take the dual nature of light for instanc.

Couldn't you be conflating epistemic and ontic issues here? After all, light behaves like a wave in some instances and like a particle in others, but this isn't necessarily indicative of a "dual" ontological status. It may be the case that light is neither a wave nor a particle but something entirely different and the fact that we perceive it as we do is due to some error of measurement (which is an epistemic issue).

Could that be the case with the Trinity as well? Certainly most Christians would seem to agree that there is no "perfect" way to understand what is, ultimately, a mystery (Apophasy, anyone?). But does the Trinity actually necessitate a tripartite ontology?

That's probably a question for another thread...

C. D. Ward

[chsalvia]

Therefore, the claim that one religion is exclusively true is often met with the charge that one is dogmatic, narrow-minded, or just plain arrogant.

I would say that this claim is, most of the time, arrogant, narrow-minded, and ridiculous. Because, most of the time, statements like this come from people who really have not bothered to thoroughly investigate competing religions.

If you have devoted a great deal of time to studying and analyzing the tenets and scriptures of various world religions, and have come to the conclusion that one of them is the "Truth", then I would certainly respect that conclusion.

However most Christians I know, who are convinced that Christianity is the Truth, are convinced of this out of intuition, faith, upbringing, or mere personal taste - and not out of any comparative study they have done.

When we don't have enough information about something, why must we devote ourselves to one particular viewpoint that seems good? Why can't we just say "I don't know."

[bonehead]

Jesus said that he is the way, the truth, and the life and no man comes to the Father but by him. I don`t see how a christian can accept a pluralistic worldview. Not if he believes what Jesus says about himself. I also believe radical islam may be the death nail to this fallicy. It simply does not adhere to this concept either, but it makes its point by force. Humanism on the other hand is quickly becoming the established religon in this nation. I personally believe its the bigger threat. Our self indulged society finds the idea of "I am god" most appealing and our government has been working hard for its advancement. Take notice in the public square, criticize jewdism and you are an anti-semite, criticize islam and you are an islamophobe, criticize humanism and you are an idiot, but criticize christianity and you get applause!

[The Curtmudgeon]

08-15-2003 @ 05:30 AM chsalvia:
However most Christians I know, who are convinced that Christianity is the Truth, are convinced of this out of intuition, faith, upbringing, or mere personal taste - and not out of any comparative study they have done.

When we don't have enough information about something, why must we devote ourselves to one particular viewpoint that seems good? Why can't we just say "I don't know."

Hypothetical conversation aboard RMS Titanic, approximately 12:05 AM, 15 April 1912 (stay with me, please, I'm really going somewhere with all this):

Traveler 1 ("T1"): The ship is sinking, we must get into the lifeboats.

T2: What!? How do you know that?

T1: Captain EJ Smith just told me that.

T2: But yesterday, the chief engineer of the ship was describing how nearly unsinkable this ship is!

T3: In fact, the engineering journals all describe how it is built and how impossible it is to sink it.

T1: Nevertheless, Captain Smith says that it is sinking.

T2: Does it seem to you that it is sinking?

T1: No, I can't say that it does. But Captain Smith says....

T4: Well, if this great liner is damaged somehow, wouldn't those little lifeboats be even more dangerous in these waters?

T1: But the ship is sinking!

Chorus of other Ts: You don't know that!

T2: By the way, how well do you know Captain Smith?

T1: What, personally? I've never met him before this voyage.

T2: But you have met him on this voyage, right? I mean, personally, to talk to.

T1: Well, no--I've just seen him around the ship, doing his duties. I'm not exactly in his social circle.

T2: So this person who told you the ship is sinking might be someone else, impersonating Captain Smith, as a prank?

T1: No, I don't think so. Anyway, it would be a poor sort of prank to play, and the officers and crew are making the lifeboats ready.

T3: It could be just a drill, as we were told to expect on board.

T1: No, it was Captain Smith, and I believe him when he says the ship is sinking.

Chorus of Ts: But that's just your opinion! You don't know it for a fact!

- - - - -

To answer ChSalvia's, 'Why can't we just say "I don't know."': Because the ship is sinking.

The (and the band is playing ragtime, to keep everybody's spirits up) Curtmudgeon

[chsalvia]

Curtmudgeon:

I really like that analogy, and I hate to criticize it. It was very fun to read.

But...alas...it really doesn't answer anything.

Let me take your metaphor a little further - if you don't mind.

Back on the Titanic, poor Traveler 1 is hopelessly trying to convince his skeptical boatmates that the ship is really sinking - despite their incredulity.

Traveler 1 - No seriously, the ship is sinking. Just please believe me, why would I lie?

Traveler 2 - Okay...fine. I believe you. So, what do you suggest we do?

Traveler 1 - Well, obviously, let's get on one of the lifeboats, and save ourselves - before it's too late.

Traveler 2 - Good idea.

Traveler 3 - Yes, very good idea.

And so, the three travelers go down to the lifeboats, but when they get there, they find that there are not one, not two, but an almost innumerable number of lifeboats.

Traveler 1 - Well, I like this lifeboat here, the one named "Jesus." Let's take that one.

Traveler 2 - Okay...but what about this one here...the one called "Mohammed." Why don't we take that one?

Traveler 1 - Hmm...well, the one called "Mohammed" looks like it might sink - it doesn't look very stable.

Traveler 2 - Yeah, but the one called "Jesus" looks kind of outdated. I don't know if I trust it.

Traveler 3 - No, both of you are stupid. I like the one over there that says "Buddha" on it. That's definitely the right boat. The others don't look very stable to me.

Traveler 1 - What do you mean the others don't look stable!? The one that says "Jesus" is obviously more stable than the one that says "Buddha." You can take the lifeboat you want but as for me, I'm taking the one that says "Jesus."

And so, with that, each traveler went their own way, in their own lifeboat. As it turns out, all three of them sunk to their deaths, due to deficiencies in the design of the lifeboats - and the fact that the rescue teams never arrived. If only they had known the right boat to take. Perhaps they should have investigated each lifeboat more carefully, instead of jumping into whatever boat they felt was the right one.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Today @ 08:16 AM chsalvia:

Curtmudgeon:

I really like that analogy, and I hate to criticize it. It was very fun to read.

Thankee thankee! Of course, the idea to compare the wreck of the Titanic to salvation is not original--it's been around since at least the first Sunday after (or whenever the various preachers started work on that Sunday's sermons). But nearly the whole conversation came into my head as I read your reply, so I just put it down.

But...alas...it really doesn't answer anything.

Let me take your metaphor a little further - if you don't mind.

It's not that I mind, exactly, but one should be careful of stretching the material too thin to support an argument.

Back on the Titanic, poor Traveler 1 is hopelessly trying to convince his skeptical boatmates that the ship is really sinking - despite their incredulity. ... And so, the three travelers go down to the lifeboats, but when they get there, they find that there are not one, not two, but an almost innumerable number of lifeboats. ... And so, with that, each traveler went their own way, in their own lifeboat. As it turns out, all three of them sunk to their deaths, due to deficiencies in the design of the lifeboats - and the fact that the rescue teams never arrived. If only they had known the right boat to take. Perhaps they should have investigated each lifeboat more carefully, instead of jumping into whatever boat they felt was the right one.

Problem with the extended metaphor: Unlike the lifeboats on the Titanic, you have to assume each lifeboat is intrinsically different from the next. A more accurate use of the Titanic example would be to say some got into lifeboats, some trusted only to their lifevests, some threw chairs or tables overboard and then tried to cling to them, and someone just climbed over the railing and walked along the rising side of the vessel until he literally just stepped into the water. Of these latter, only a few survived--and they only by being subsequently rescued by those in the lifeboats, and pulled into (or, okay, in one case on top of) a lifeboat. And all who got into a lifeboat--any lifeboat--from the Titanic were saved (I'm obviously excepting those very few who were pulled from the freezing water into a lifeboat but died from hypothermia anyway--there does come a time when it's too late to get into the boat!).

Now, I know you will next say, "Yes, but how do you know that Christ is the lifeboats, and not the lifevests or chairs or such? I could make the exact same parallel, but claim that Islam or Buddhism or Mormonism is the lifeboat." Yes; it's only a metaphor. But my point was that comparative study of religions is rarely the source of a Christian's faith; rather, we are convicted by the Holy Spirit that the Bible truly is the Word of God, and must be taken as such--that we are sinful and thereby doomed unless we accept the salvation that God has offered us, and that that salvation is clearly stated by Jesus when He said "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by Me."

All people, until they have hardened their hearts, are convicted by the Holy Spirit of the truth of the need for salvation--that there is something wrong, something missing, with our lives. But some, not wanting to accept their personal responsibility for sin, look to other means and close out the Holy Spirit--they may choose personal denial ("There's nothing wrong with me"), global denial ("It's all a bunch of hogwash") or alternate salvations. But when we let the Holy Spirit, who has convicted us originally of the problem, guide us to the solution, that solution is "Jesus Christ, and Him crucified."

The Captain has not merely told us the ship is sinking, He has also told us how to escape. Some ignore the whole thing, some hear the first but ignore the second or think that they know a better way, but only those who both hear and obey all that the Captain says will be found alive in the hereafter.

The ("Row, row for the shore") Curtmudgeon

[chsalvia]

The Curtmudgeon

But my point was that comparative study of religions is rarely the source of a Christian's faith; rather, we are convicted by the Holy Spirit that the Bible truly is the Word of God, and must be taken as such--that we are sinful and thereby doomed unless we accept the salvation that God has offered us, and that that salvation is clearly stated by Jesus when He said "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by Me."

Yes...well, you see, when you say that to someone who is a non-believer, this is what they hear:

"But my point was that comparative study of religions is rarely the source of a Christian's faith; rather, we are convicted by our own subjective inclinations, desires, and possibly upbringing, to automatically dismiss all other religions, which seem foreign, unsatisfying, and strange, and we blindly embrace Christianity without really bothering to look into any evidence for it, because evidence doesn't matter when you have that warm feeling in your heart that God loves you and your life means something and you're going to spend eternity exploring the wonderful splendor that is God's love."

[Passant]

I thought the metaphor, extended by chsalvia, was a good point for pluralism, any lifeboat would do.

Unlike the lifeboats on the Titanic, you have to assume each lifeboat is intrinsically different from the next.

I don't see why, they all seem the same to me.

But the REAL problem is, it would be something more like this.

t1- the boat is sinking, get in the lifeboat

t2- but I don't see any lifeboat there.

t3- of course you don't, his lifeboat is a myth, get in this one here!

t2- but I don't see any lifeboat there.

t4- of course you don't, those are not real lifboats, this one here is.

t2- but I don't see...

t5-(man in lab coat) of course you don't, but here is a lifeboat that everyone can see, can agree that it exists, and I can demonstrate that it will float, watch (lowers lifeboat).

Of course, my question is what does the ship represent in the metaphor? If it is our life, than nothing will save us, we are going to sink sooner or later, and no lifeboat will save us. If it's the world, we should quit arguing over lifeboats we can't see, and don't seem to have any effect, we should jump in the one that we can see, and when we get to shore, find out what the heck went wrong, learn from it, and stop it from happening again.