J.W. Wartick has a nice article on the failure of religious pluralism. He makes the point that while religious pluralists want to affirm all religions as being valid, they can only do so at the expense of charging all religions as false. It’s quite the paradox, similar to hitting people to demonstrate your love for them.
While pluralists charge all religious traditions as false in order to affirm them, their own views are presented as objective truth. They do not claim to know the true nature of the Transcendent anymore than the next guy, but they do claim to be the only ones who know the true nature of religion. How convenient.
Thinking to Believe 
September 18, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Seems similar to me to every type of evangelism. They are insulting the same amount of religions as a Christian does. Christians “charge all religious traditions as false” while “their own views are presented as objective truth”. This is exactly what is being done when evangelizing. Other than the twist of being right by being wrong, they insult the same amount of religions. I’ve always seen this as the problem with most evangelism or proselytizing. It doesn’t seem much different to me.
LikeLike
September 18, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Of course Christians think that Christianity is true, and all other religions false. And the same is true of those in other religious traditions. How is that insulting? It’s just the nature of truth claims. If I believe X is true, then I also must believe that all variations of -X must be false. To believe the Earth is round is to believe that it is false to think the Earth is flat, octagonal, triangular, etc.
No one is faulting these religious pluralists for thinking that they are right. What’s so ironic about their position is that religious pluralism is seen to be a way of affirming all religions, when in fact it does no such thing. It is just as dismissive of all religions as religious exclusivists are of all other religions than their own. It’s the hypocrisy that is so intriguing, not the fact that they think they are right.
Jason
LikeLike
September 19, 2012 at 10:52 am
Then why use the term insulting?
LikeLike
September 19, 2012 at 11:02 am
To insult someone is to treat with disrespect, to scornfully abuse. I don’t see this here. You don’t like their irony, that’s fine, but that doesn’t make it any more insulting than any other proselytizing. They say they’re right, you say you’re right. You both say everyone else is wrong. One is no more insulting than the other.
LikeLike
September 19, 2012 at 11:52 am
Jason,
I’ll be the first to admit that I used “insulting” in the title for dramatic flair more than for accurate description. I don’t find the fact that pluralists find all religions false to be insulting. What I do find at leat a bit insulting, however, is that they present themselves as affirming of all religions, when in reality they are actually doing the exact opposite. It’s insulting to my intelligence when someone tells me I am right because I am wrong. Pluralists want to pretend that they are the good guys who affirm all religions, when in reality they are just as dismissive of the truth claims of all religions as religious adherents are of all religions other than their own.
Jason
LikeLike
September 19, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Jason, thanks for your candidness. I don’t think that it is their intention to insult, it is just seen that way from the other perspective. Which is usually the case with any theological differences. I think, and I am probably wrong, that they don’t try to pass their beliefs off as the only truth per se. I don’t think it is as much about truth, as it is about a personal relationship with God. I think their point is more talking from a perspective that there isn’t one ultimate truth, that all (most) religions teach how to be a better person, and how to get closer to God, no matter the differences. It is more about how all religions can learn to effectively co-exist peacefully, with a shared idea of God. I think it is a good way to promote religious tolerance, which this world badly needs. I believe they don’t mean to insult in anyway. I believe that religious pluralism is more about peace, respect, and tolerance, than bigotry and denigration. If more religions chose to approach other religions this way, we’d be better off.
LikeLike
September 20, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Jason W
Whether the pluralists intend to pass off their beliefs as the only truth or not is irrelevant. They may try to downplay it, but the fact remains that they do think that they alone are right when it comes to understanding the nature of religion. Pluralists come in different flavors. They either believe (1) that since God doesn’t exist, it doesn’t matter what you believe, or (2) they think that God doesn’t care what people believe about him so it doesn’t matter what you believe, or (3) they think that God is unknowable and thus all attempts to interpret the divine are equal failures but noble attempts. In any case, their view is understood as the only right one. If you think God does exist, then you are wrong and they are right. Or if you think God does care what people believe about him, then you are wrong and they are right. If you think God can be known and that you know something about Him, then you are wrong and they are right. There’s no getting around the fact that they believe anyone who does not share their views about the nature of religion is wrong. Only they have it right. That’s fine to believe that. Indeed, if we really understand what it means to “believe” and “know” something, it requires that we think we are right and all others who disagree are wrong. The problem is that they try to pretend that they are not doing this whereas everyone else is.
I agree with religious tolerance, but one doesn’t need religious pluralism to accomplish religious tolerance. Indeed, I would argue that pluralism undermines the notion of tolerance. We don’t “tolerate” people we think are right. We only tolerate people we think are wrong. So to tolerate other’s religious views we must first judge them to be wrong.
Jason
LikeLike
September 20, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Jason, I agree. I am not a pluralist, so I don’t know a whole lot about it. And I agree that their approach is self defeating. But I do believe in tolerance, and I think they try that, but fail in their attempt.
LikeLike
September 21, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Actually, I don’t see anything wrong with using the word, “insulting”. In order to make the project of pluralism work, as in the case of saying something like, “All religions teach the same thing, or, “All religions are just different paths to the same God” one would have to completely misrepresent and spin the general doctrinal creeds of each religion in order for those statements to be true. I don’t know about you, but my intent in service and worship is specific and to have someone attempt to misreprent my motives does in fact seem insulting.
LikeLike
September 21, 2012 at 12:40 pm
To have someone misrepresent my motives… Hmmm, have Christians ever misrepresented someone elses motives?? Well I would say everytime someone called me an antichrist, the devil, or just plain put down my beliefs, they were misrepresenting me. Rewriting the definition of a Deist in order to knowingly and willingly misrepresent the Deist beliefs falls right into that category. They do nothing different than other religions. Everytime a Christian talks about why another religion is wrong it is insulting. It just seems kind of contradictory to accuse them of something that every religion does.
I beieve that all religions are man made, therefore, I believe that all religions are essentially the same. Man’s attempt to get closer to God, man’s attempt to know the unknowable. The difference with me is I don’t believe every religion is right, I believe every religion is wrong. You may not agree, in fact, you might find that insulting. But it doesn’t matter, because everyone has the right to their own beliefs, whether you agree or not. Pot, stop calling the kettle black.
LikeLike
September 21, 2012 at 8:57 pm
The two Jasons:
It seems to me that everyone has the right to their own beliefs, but it does not follow that everyone has the right to have one’s beliefs considered equivalent or superior to those that are better thought out or conform more to the realities we come in contact with. It is often difficult to evaluate the opinions of others because they are not the product of rigorously thought out or based on available information.
Civil conversation depends on two people discussing without insult. Insult does matter. On the other hand, “wearing ones heart on ones sleeve,” is a defense mechanism that also relieves one of the necessity of deeper consideration.
What is deeply disconcerting is that we live in an age where most people who express strong opinions don’t seem to think that they need to hang them on some well reasoned concept. Personal preference will suffice. Thought is not a momentary thing, rarely a light-bulb incident. Many ideas require years of consideration and reconsideration, adjustment and reevaluation.
LikeLike
September 22, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Jason W.
Perfect example: “Well I would say everytime someone called me an antichrist, the devil, or just plain put down my beliefs, they were misrepresenting me.”
Two points on this. Yes, that is a misrepresentation, at least at face value, becuase I have no information about you that could substantiate the claim–it would be a fairly significant amount of evidence needed in order to claim that you were in fact the antichrist or the devil, and from what I understand of doctrine and text, it’s highly unlikely you’re not….phew. 🙂
Second. It doesn’t take much effort to find people who call themselves Christians out and about running around offending other people. Guilty as charged…I’m not perfect. But I think when we consider the claims of Christianity, the claims of Buddhism, et. al, compared to that of the claims of Pluralism or even Relativism we’re talking about something entirely different than being offended or insulted by an actual person. Let’s address the claims for what they are and see if Pluralism gets us anywhere.
Pluralism–All religions teach basically the same thing and there are multiple paths to the same God.
Buddhism–There is no God.
Hinduism–God is unknowable.
Christianity–There is one knowable God.
You can see immediately without much effort that Pluralism makes claims about other religions that aren’t in fact true. It makes misrepresentations that are contradictory and if you want to go as far as “insulting” then I think that’s fine.
Relativism, on the other hand has a different kind of ham-fisted approach–What’s right for you is right for you, what’s right for me is right for me. In a practical realistic world, relativism fails to make any sense…especially when we start discussing morality, value, ethics, aesthetics and duty.
Tolerance is great–I have no motives to be intolerant of others who hold different views, my own family is a representation of different worldviews and we get along fine and love one another very much. I see no reason to insult them. But if they find my view of reality insulting, then I can’t see how I’m to blame for that…especially since my view would be included in the set of views that fall under the umbrella of either Pluralism or Relativism.
LikeLike
September 22, 2012 at 3:09 pm
So in short you’re point is not simply about their belief, but them trying to correct your religion. It’s their approach to your religion that you feel is insulting. It’s not that they are saying you are wrong, and their religion is right, it’s that they are saying you are wrong about your religion, and they know more about your religion than you do. I can see the difference.
I’ve never agreed with their philosophy, but didn’t look at it as insulting. I never really gave their views a whole of thought really, since they are self defeating right from the start. One has to wonder how anyone intelligent could keep believing in something whose premise itself is self-contradictory.
LikeLike
September 22, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Basically yes. To say that Islam and Hunduism and Christianity and Judaism and New Age and Mormonism are the same is pretty unintelligent, genorously.
I think we need to be careful though. Let’s not assume that people who think this way profess themselves to be Pluralists or Relativists. Quite the contrary, most people hold their worldviews subconscieously and in many cases have a completely unexamined worldview.
Generally, when someone makes Pluralist or Relativist claims, its a dead ringer that they have given world religions much thought. Just a cursory look at comparative religion, worldviews and philosophy, shows that there are significant distinctives among the views. In nearly every context that I’ve heard a Pluralist claim, the motivation was to control the conversation and get back to talking about the weather…or sports.
Here’s Dr. Timothy Keller’s critique on Pluralism: “Ironically, the insistence that doctrines do not matter is really a doctrine itself. It holds a specific view of God, which is touted as superior and more enlightened than the beliefs of most major religions. So the proponents of this view do the very thing they forbid in others.”
LikeLike
September 22, 2012 at 3:40 pm
I wish I could edit that last comment….
I meant to say that “Generally, when someone makes Pluralist or Relativist claims, its a dead ringer that they //haven’t// given world religions much thought.”
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 11:38 am
Great dialogue! Don K, I particularly liked your last paragraph. That’s quotable!
Jason
LikeLike