*More from the archives. This is the finished part of an unfinished paper on pluralism I was supposed to write for a class on apologetics, which project marriage and moving forced me to abandon. My professor was pleased enough with my other paper (one half of the requirements) to give me a D- for the class. (Imagine if I had completed all the work!)*
One of the most shocking experiences for me happened during my first year at a new liberal arts college. The class was Logic and the lesson was on the law of non-contradiction: “‘A’ and ‘not a’ cannot both be true at the same time and in the same manner.” The example given was a man saying to his neighbor, “My grandfather has passed away, but it’s all right, because I know he’s in heaven now.” The neighbor replies, “How can he be alive in heaven if he’s dead, since death means the cessation of life?” Either he’s alive in heaven, or he’s completely dead and gone. But one girl on the right side of the room raised her hand and asked, “Why can’t he be both?” And she could not be dissuaded. As far as she was concerned there was no fallacy in assuming that he could be in heaven for his grandson, and nowhere at all for the neighbor—in the same sense, at the same time.
I was so amazed at her unyielding ignorance that I repeated the story to two of my friends that night. They both looked at me blankly and asked what was wrong with her position. Why couldn’t he be both in heaven and not in heaven, depending on who you asked? I was flabbergasted. These were not unintelligent people. But as far as they were concerned this poor departed man was both existent and non-existent at the same time. I could understand that none of us could be absolutely certain about this man’s eternal state, but surely the man himself could clear up the question, if only we could ask him. But apparently, this would have made it only worse, since he would bring a third perspective that would also be equally valid. As far as I can tell, this was my first exposure to pluralism, and by all accounts, my experience is not all that uncommon. Apparently there’s a lot of this stuff going around.
Pluralism, in terms of a multiplicity of religious beliefs, has always been a reality. But in the last hundred years or so, owing to a whole host of factors, a large number of people have begun to shift in their mindset in regards to pluralism, away from simply being aware that other people think differently on key issues, and toward the idea “that any notion that a particular ideological or religious claim is intrinsically superior to another is necessarily wrong” (Carson 19). D. A. Carson makes some distinctions between different types of pluralism in his book, “The Gagging of God,” which might be helpful: At one end of the spectrum is “Empirical Pluralism,” the simple fact of multiple religions represented in a single collection of people. At the opposite end is “Philosophical Pluralism,” which considers the fact of multiple and conflicting ideologies to be an accurate representation of not only people’s convictions but also of reality as it is. In other words, Philosophical Pluralism would have us understand that whenever systems of thought come into conflict (at least in metaphysical, religious, or spiritual questions), the truth of the matter is that all positions are more or less correct, if not in the details, then at least in the general gist.
Empirical Pluralism is fine – we’ve had it as long as we’ve had idolatry. It buts up nicely against Christian exclusivism, the position that the “central claims of Christianity are true, and that where the claims of Christianity conflict with those of other religions, the latter are to be rejected as false” (Netland 11). It’s perfectly natural to start from the assumption that your current position is correct, and hold to that assumption until you see a compelling reason to change positions. The problem is with Philosophical Pluralism, which has the disconcerting effect of communicating to the Evangelical apologist that he is both wrong and not wrong at the same time.
Nevertheless, there are some very real conflicts between Evangelical Christianity and any kind of normative pluralism. As much as pluralists wish to say that all religious or metaphysical positions are compatible, it only works as long as long as all parties wish to concede the point. Since Evangelicals will insist on exclusivism, pluralists are, in some way forced to deny a fundamental belief of a major religious position. The fact that Pluralism conflicts with Evangelicalism points to some of the underlying flaws in Pluralism, since Pluralism insists that Evangelicalism is unacceptable while at the same time insisting that all religious positions are equally acceptable. It’s very difficult to adhere to both of these positions equally.
It’s not my intent to “pluralize the pluralists,” or to succinctly demonstrate the superiority of Evangelical Christianity in 3000 words. Other people, with far better qualifications, have already done a very thorough job of that. What I would like to do, however, is to outline some of the key apologetic responses to pluralism, both on an individual and on a corporate level, and to evaluate how pluralism is being responded to in the wider culture. At the end, I anticipate that I will speculate wildly about the future of pluralism in Western civilization as a whole.
Responses to Pluralism
The first thing that an Evangelical needs to evaluate in order to properly respond to pluralism is whether or not pluralism is actually true. One of the key effects of pluralism is to put Evangelicals on the defensive. Pluralists usually start with an innate advantage simply because they aren’t arguing for pluralism from an Evangelical foundation. Instead, pluralism has become an innate part of the culture for them. Why shouldn’t they be pluralists? Aren’t all religions basically saying the same thing? It is Christian exclusivism that is the strange creature to them. This can easily leave the Evangelical apologist feeling as though he is arguing that water shouldn’t be wet. Josh McDowell is famous for saying that “The best defense is a good offense,” and it’s probably very true in this case. Nevertheless, in order to effectively be on the offensive, it’s necessary to have a thoroughgoing evaluation of pluralism in regards to Evangelicalism. What is it about pluralism that’s so wrong? ….
### Useful quotes: ###
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/03/blog-interview-victor-davis-hanson.html
Netland 260:
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the major reason for regarding such statements as noncognitive expressions of one’s devotion and not as true-or-false assertions about actual states of affairs is a resolute unwillingness to accept the perceived undesirable ontological implications which follow if they are taken in their most normal, straightforward sense.
Netland 278:
Christian mission ought today to be identified…with a fresh understanding of other religions which recognizes that all faiths are in their own ways bearers of divine revelation and salvation, and which, rather than seeking converts, encourages each person to be more faithful to that particular tradition in which he or she happens to be placed.
neumatikos 