Video on Pluralism (Forthcoming)
Here we shift gears a little and think about Christianity instead of mere theism. What are we to make of the wide differences of religious (and non-religious) opinions and world
views? For some the buzzing controversy indicates there is no rational way to adjudicate the conflict. Certainly it does raise questions and simple answers do not seem to do justice to the seriousness and subtlety of the problem. At any rate this issue is often the elephant in the living room that polite folks try to avoid talking about.
“Pluralism” itself is a term that has several meanings and the same can be said about the term “religious pluralism”. There is the “fact” of religious pluralism, that is, it is a fact there there exists a plurality of world-views and a plurality of appeals to ultimate religious authority. So one sense of religious pluralism has to do with the fact that there exists a plurality of religious systems of belief--there is for example religious beliefs like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Humanism, and so forth. (Here I’m using the term “religious” to include both theistic and non-theistic “religions”.)
Despite the fact that significant similarities among these system of beliefs have been identified by philosophers of religion (and others) there remains a serious difficulty. The problem of religious pluralism is thought to arise when one considers whether any of those systems of belief, in their core beliefs, is closer to the truth or truer than others. Is there a neutral way to adjudicate that? Or are we all just talking past each other?
As a matter of fact, any orthodox believers of these individual religious persuasions have argued (or claimed) that their particular religious view is the truth or truer in their core beliefs than the others.
Now, this sort of claim has come under rather severe criticism and in many forms. For example, it has been argued that to make such a claim about one’s religion (in this case, I use as an example what is called in many quarters historic orthodox Christianity) is true or truer in its core beliefs than other religions is simply an arrogant claim. Such a charge has been hard to swallow for true believers for various reasons.
The main ammunition for the claim of religious relativism has found its basis in cultural relativism. The main thesis of that is that a person's cultural background profoundly determines one’s religious beliefs and since we are “victims” of our “era” and cultural beliefs why think they are the true one since they would be different if we grew up in a different culture or era? However, this arguments seems susceptible to the genetic fallacy.
Indeed, suppose that one’s religion or secular beliefs were true and you were raised in 
a culture where it was taught early on, is that sufficient reason to reject its truthfulness? On that basis we would reject all religious and secular beliefs were we to be raised in a culture like ours. That’s because from early on in life there are claims and assumptions being made about the truthfulness of religious and secular views. Do I rule out the secular beliefs about religion just because I’ve heard them early on? I don’t think so and neither can religious beliefs be ruled out on the same grounds--they stand or fall on their own merits.
There are several lines of justification given for this criticism of historic Christianity which we will want to list and eventually help you navigate this mine field:
- One such line of justification for skepticism places the burden of proof on Christian apologists to provide evidence that their core beliefs are true or truer than the other systems of belief. In this scenario the objector holds that Christian apologists have not cleared the bar of rational justification (whatever that exactly is) and are thus not properly entitled to make the claim they do.
- Another line of skeptical claims that one sees, more in popular culture than in academe, is the denial that the religious beliefs systems taken at face value are themselves in logical contradiction with each other. In short, they are thought to be different paths to the same goal. Typically this sort of claim is made or has purchase when those who make it are not really familiar with the details of the other religious claims. Perhaps it is this lack of familiarity with the details that makes it subjectively permissible for them to think religions as different paths to the same place, all of which are equally true. But investigation will hardly support such a perspective.
- However, there are several more sophisticated versions of the “many paths to truth” criticism that does tend to show up in academe and they reach virtually the same conclusion as above but for different reasons. These folks are much more likely to be acquainted with the religions than those mentioned just above, but even that doesn’t exempt many of them from serious mistakes. True believers of this view have argued that people who make the sort of religious claims exclusivists do have a serious misunderstanding of the nature of religious claims and/or of their own religion. Adherents to this view often have different reasons for thinking this which include: a) some hold that religious views by their nature and by varying degrees (again for various reasons) are subjective claims and not objective claims and it’s nonsense to think otherwise; b) some hold that all religious claims are in fact false and they are equally valid ways to false beliefs that may or may not have subjective benefits for believers; c) some hold this particular critical view not so much because of logical reasons, but it seems more for sociological or cultural reasons. That is, a religious truth claim of this sort is thought to divide people and create another source for cultural conflict. So this objection is something of a practical or pragmatic criticism of the exclusivist claim--it leads to bad or undesirable ends. And if temporal bad ends aren’t enough, the exclusivist view it is charged, if it were true, would create an eternally bad states of affairs!
So how might we properly think about these sorts of objections (especially #s 1 & 3) and what could we say or point to that may shed more light than heat? It shouldn’t come as to great a surprise that Christians with different theological and philosophical commitments have responded differently. Some times the differences do not seem so great, other times, they do.
By looking at the resources provided, the hope is help you formulate your own thinking and answers. So continue to explore by looking at a variety of links, annotated bibliographies and so forth to help you work on this project.