Rate this:

Damien,

Thank you for taking the time to debate with me. I know that it has been enjoyable for our readers as well as for me. It is truly a rare thing to find someone such as yourself who is willing to go the extra mile to truly examine and discuss one’s own beliefs.

I have taken a long time to write back, as I wanted my response to be adequate. I also have agonized about how to make this post shorter for the ease of our readers, but I have found yet again that such topics require lengthy discussion.  My remedy includes a segmentation of your comments. I hope that it makes for a smooth read.

Religious Pluralism

The philosophy that you are advocating is known as religious pluralism. This was demonstrated when you said, “I submit that it is a possibility that all of the religions are ways to God.” It is my intent to demonstrate to you that not only is religious pluralism not philosophically or logically possible, it is a myth.

I would like to start out, as I often do, with an emphasis on the gift of human communication. Simply put the importance of our words.  Osvaldo put it beautifully when he said in his comment, “Speculation, relativism, multiple paths, etc., all these make sense, until I have verbalized my feelings.” Our words are important as they set us apart from all other species on the earth. Only we have the ability to correctly articulate such difficult topics as philosophy and religion. But as we have been given this ability, it also comes with a responsibility. That responsibility is the acceptance of definitions. Words require definitions if they are to have any meaning at all. I will exhibit that the concepts that you are speculating do not hold up to higher scrutiny once they are transferred from unexplainable emotions to explainable words.

Problems With Infinite Possibilities

You start by asking the question “Is it possible that God has created other roads to Him? If that is not possible, I would love to hear your proof.” I would respectfully ask you what information you have added, to support your position, which is external to your feelings. In fact, what you are offering is merely empty questions with no support behind them. The things that I am suggesting line up with actuality. I can, and have demonstrated very clearly the irreconcilable differences between the religions as evidence of my point.

Most of what you are proposing is based upon an overuse of the word possible. Remove this word from your argument and what have you to stand on besides conjecture? If we follow your argument style, then the efficacy of my argument can be expressed with no more than a question of possibility. “Is it possible for God to make only one way to Him? If it is not possible, I would enjoy hearing your proof.”

It is also possible that mankind has rejected the one religion that God designed as a way to Him and has created inferior alternatives. Where is your proof that this is not so? Merely asking open ended questions without ever attempting to defend those same questions, inevitably leads to a weakness of position. It also allows you to escape from having to accept any burden of proof which is desirable, yet not profitable for your argument.

A Revelation of Presuppositions

“I also submit that it is a possibility that God tells us what we need to hear, true or not, to live good lives.”

The implications and presuppositions of this statement are far reaching and reveal your perception of both the nature of God and the nature of goodness. First, you acknowledge that God talks to us, or imparts information to us in some manner. Next, you assume that God can lie. Finally, and perhaps the most alarming aspect of this statement is that somehow a life based upon lies could result in what you call a “good” life. Can you prove any of this or back any of this up? Will you be teaching your children to lie to others, allow them to be lied to, and to build their lives upon lies, seeing as how it doesn’t matter as long as it is “good”? Does that mean that lying is also good? What do you define as good? Whose definition are you using? What if my definition of good and your definition of good are completely different? Does that mean that you did not in fact live a good life?

The Nature of Our Discussion

The next statement that I believe to be in error in regards to our discussion is, “Who are we to question why God does something.” I agree wholly that we are so far below God that to question why He does something is the equivalent of an ant asking the black hole why it chose to be a black hole. However, this conversation is not a question of why God does something, for no man can know God’s reasons for why He does things. If we could, then He would cease to be God. This conversation is a question of how God does something. It is not a question of His motives, but rather His methods.

A Contextual Error

I must address your misuse of Matthew 19:26 as well. As with any writing or speech, context plays a pivotal role. You have taken this verse out of context and as a result have substituted your own meaning in place of the original one. You have quoted the second half of a response given, while simultaneously omitting the first half of the response as well as the question that prompted the response. Here is the phrase in its context, in its entirety from the book of Matthew.

^19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? ²⁶ But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”

It is clear from the verses above that his disciples are asking about salvation. Jesus’ answer then, has nothing to do with anything except salvation. He is saying that for men to try and save themselves is an impossible task. Yet this task is not impossible for God. He has saved men through the very person that you quote in this section, Jesus Christ.

God Wasting Time

“If God speaks to us, He might tell us the absolute truth. If He does we cannot understand it.” 

                So let me see if I understand you correctly. Not only is God capable of lying, but He is capable of pointless actions? Why would God waste His time telling us something we won’t understand? Would you take your time to explain binary code or hyper-text markup language to a one year old? If you as a human would not attempt such a foolish endeavor, why do you presume that God would?

In Conclusion

If a person believes that religious pluralism is true, there are only two ways that they could have arrived at that position. They have either not progressed past a surface level understanding of the various world religions, or they have resigned themselves to cease thinking rationally.

I will acknowledge that my dinner analogy has its flaws. I have found another analogy to aid us in our discussion. Perhaps if you employed the same logic to an area other than religion, you will see your error. Let us use pluralism in a political arena. Is it reasonable or rational to say that the end result of communism is the same as a monarchy? Do you actually believe that democracy and a military dictatorship produce the exact same product? Of course you wouldn’t. If you do, do you have any proof of this or is it just another “possibility”?

The differences between them at the fundamental level are so staggering that only a completely irrational person would argue that the various ideologies were the same. Why then in the face of such equally glaring problems when pluralism is applied to religion, do you abandon the rational position, and adopt an irrational one? I am interested in hearing your reasoning on this double standard.

In summation, the problems of religious pluralism can be summed up with the following few examples.

1. Religious Pluralism is true.
2. Therefore, all religious beliefs are true.
3. My religious belief is that religious pluralism is not true.
4. Therefore, religious pluralism is not true.

 

1. All political systems are the same.
2. Dictatorship is a political system.
3. Democracy is a political system.
4. Therefore, Democracy and Dictatorship are the same.

 

• Can you prove to me that the two statements (A = B) (A ≠ B) are not contradictory?

This is not to my credit, but I have written over 5,000 words on this topic alone. If you will not acknowledge the insurmountable errors with the above statements, or if you do not have a sufficient, rational alternative explanation, I fear that we may be at the end of our discussion on this topic for now. There seems to be a jump that you need to make from what is possible to what is probable. Many things are possible, not all things are probable.

The amount of faith that you are displaying to believe in religious pluralism in the face of such amazing problems is something that cannot be ignored. If you directed that faith to God, you might be surprised as to what you could know and who could tell it to you. God is the only one who can define absolute truth. He is not the only one who can know it.

{If you would like to read Damien’s original comment please click below.}

{ http://thepursuitoftruth.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/the-law-of-non-contradiction/#comment-45 }

Advertisement