TRFG - Doubt 1 - There can't be just one true religion

It is widely believed that religions that make exclusive truth claims are a major barrier to world peace. Such religions teach adherents that they have “the truth”. This naturally leads to a feeling of superiority, which then leads to a downward spiral of ostracizing and oppressing other groups as inferior.

This problem is recognized by many, and I actually agree with it. There seems to be something in the heart of people that drives them to violence and oppression. Literally anything can be used as reason for such behavior. Once we recognize that exclusive religions may add a barrier to world peace, the question remains of what to do about it? There are three different responses being employed throughout the world to try and remove the divisiveness of religion:

1. Outlaw religion
2. Condemn religion
3. Radically privatize religion

Sadly, I don’t believe any of these will end up being successful. This is because each is ultimately inconsistent. We will now look at each of these attempts to quell religion in turn.

Outlaw Religion

One attempt to remove the intolerance and oppression stemming from religion is to outlaw it. The problem here is that in the 20th Century, many of the worst displays of intolerance and violence came from the very people who accused religion to be the source of intolerance and violence.

Going along with this view was the belief that religion was a tool developed by our prehistoric ancestors for coping with the complex and scary world around them. Further, the secularization thesis contended that as people evolved and became more sophisticated and technologically advanced, their understanding of the world around them would cause people to move away from organized religion as such a coping mechanism.

The secularization thesis is now largely dismissed, the church is growing worldwide even as we become more technologically advanced. Not just wimpy faith either, but strong faith in the supernatural as well as belief in the authority of Scripture and the need for rebirth. Attempts to squash religion only seem to encourage its growth. This all points to the fact that religion is not just the by-product of a need to make sense of our world.

Condemn Religion

People holding this position may say something like, “Can’t we - via education and argument - find ways to socially discourage religions that claim to have ‘the truth’ and that try to convert others to their beliefs?” or, “Can’t we find ways to urge all people, regardless of their religious beliefs, to admit that each religion is just one of many equal paths to God and ways to live in the world?” This environment makes it seem unenlightened to make exclusive claims regarding religion (i.e. “Jesus is the only way”).

While this approach is having more success than simply trying to squash religion, it cannot ultimately succeed because there are inconsistencies with this approach.

Next, we consider several versions of this approach to discourage exclusive religions and where they fall short.

All major religions are equally valid and teach basically the same thing.

This claim is extremely common in our world today. The problem with it is that it is inconsistent. Do we really think that religions that promote child sacrifice are equivalent to those who do not? What is often meant by this argument is that each of the major world religions are basically equivalent, not considering splinter sects. There is still a big problem with even this assertion.

A good illustration of the problem comes if we imagine asking someone what they mean by “God”. Many will respond something like “an all-loving spiritual being watching over all things”. However, Islam for example would not say that love is the defining attribute of their God, Buddhists don’t even believe in a personal God. The problem is that while they argue “doctrine doesn’t matter”, they none-the-less make doctrinal statements about the God they believe in which are at odds with many of the faiths of the world.

Each religion sees part of spiritual truth, but none can see the whole truth.

This argument is often explained with the story of some blind mice who happen upon an elephant. The first feels the trunk and says that an elephant is long and pliable like a snake. The second is along the back of the elephant and says “no, an elephant is broad and hard”. The third is touching one of the legs and responds confidently, “no, an elephant is tall and strong.” And so on. The point of the story is that each mouse is only able to comprehend a part of what we consider to be “an elephant”, but not one is able to grasp what the elephant is in its entirety.

The problem with this analogy is that the story is told from the perspective of an outside observer who is able to see. That is, the story depends on someone who can see the whole elephant and recognize that each mouse is only comprehending a portion of it.

The problem with the argument that “no one can see the whole truth” is that it is also a universal truth claim which must also apply to itself. In fact, all truths that claim to be universal (applicable to everyone and everything) must also apply to themselves. If you claim that “no one can see the whole truth”, how do you know that you have the whole truth?

All universal truth claims must also apply to themselves.

Peter Berger said it another way “relativity relativizes itself.”¹

While it may appear that those making this claim are demonstrating a level of humility. Ultimately, they are simply claiming to see “the truth” in a different way.

Religious belief is too culturally and historically conditioned to be ‘truth’.

This argument goes something like this: “You are only a Christian because you grew up in the West. If you grew up in Saudi Arabia, you would be a Muslim.” The problem with this argument, similar to the one above, is that it must apply to the statement itself. As the philosopher Alvin Plantinga put it:

Suppose we concede that if I had been born of Muslim parents in Morocco rather than Christian parents in Michigan, my beliefs would have been quite different. [But] the same goes for the pluralist… if the pluralist had been born in [Morocco] he probably wouldn’t be a pluralist. Does it follow that… his pluralist beliefs are produced in him by an unreliable belief-producing process?

The person making the claim that belief is too culturally conditioned to be ‘truth’ is also conditioned by the culture in which he was born. Does where someone grew up make their claims of truth any less relevant? Of course not. You cannot simply reject a claim of the knowledge of the truth based on where that truth claim comes from. Though it is difficult, we must try to weigh truth claims regardless of their origin.

It is arrogant to insist that your religion is right and to convert others to it.

John Hick noted that once you realize that there are equally intelligent and good people in the world who hold different beliefs than you and that you will not be able to convince them otherwise, it is arrogant to continue to try to convert them or to hold your view to be the superior truth.

The problem here is the inherent contradiction. Not everyone believes what John Hick was saying, but yet he was trying to “convert” them to his way of thinking. Similarly, claiming that it is ethnocentric or racist to believe our religion is superior to another is itself an ethnocentric statement. Most people in many parts of the world have no problem thinking that their religion and culture are superior to others. Thinking that it is wrong to do so is rooted deeply in the Western ideas of self-criticism and individualism. To claim that other cultures are wrong in viewing their way of life as superior is really just saying “our way of viewing religion is superior to yours, so you should view things this way.” You cannot compare religions without having some kind of ethical code which in the end serves as its own religion.

Privatize Religion

This is the attempt to say that people may hold whatever beliefs they want about God or religion, but they cannot bring those beliefs to bare on public matters. The problem here comes from how you define “religion”. When asked, many will define religion as “a belief system about God”. However, this is insufficient as Zen Buddhism doesn’t really believe in God at all. How can we define religion? Keller defines it for us in this way

Religion is “a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing”.

For example, some think the material world is all there is and when you die, you rot in the ground. They may then say it is most important for people to be happy in this life and not let others impose their beliefs on them. While it may not be an organized religion, all the elements of what constitutes a religious belief are present in this “statement of (un)faith”.

If we define religion in this way, then the attempts to privatize religion really only end up telling those people in organized religions that they may come to public dialogue only after leaving the most important part of themselves behind ².

Christianity Can Save the World

We began this post by stating how religions making exclusive truth claims tend to create a “slippery slope” in the heart of people that leads to oppression and violence. While I agree that the exclusivity of many religions might hinder world peace, I disagree with the common attempts to hinder religion discussed above.

In contrast, I do think that belief in robust, historical Christian teaching can help promote world peace rather than hinder it. The doctrines of Christianity promote peace in the world. Jesus said the world would largely recognize Christian morals as “good” (Matt. 5:16). Further, the doctrine of the universal sinfulness of man causes Christians to recognize their own depravity. Because Christianity teaches that a person is not made right with God based on moral superiority, but rather because of the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Christian is also not surprised to find people from other cultures or faiths that may be morally superior to themselves.

Since we’ve argued that all truth claims fundamentally have a faith component, we need to consider which fundamental doctrines lead to promoting peace? As a specific example consider the birth place of Christianity, the Greco-Roman world. There, Christians held to the “exclusive” doctrine of only believing in one God while the greater Roman world was very open as it regarded belief in God, everyone had their own God. Yet it was the Christians who had members from all cultures and social classes, while Rome was extremely stratified socially and economically. Why the difference? Because Christian doctrine teaches that one man, namely Jesus died to save all people from their sins.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the devastation that has been caused in the name of Christianity. We must be sympathetic to this hesitation and recognize the propensity for people to move toward oppression and violence (we will be discussing this in a future lesson). However, we cannot deny that historical Christian doctrine promotes world peace rather than hinders it.

Question 1 Keller asks: “Do we really want to say that … religions requiring child sacrifice are not inferior to any other faith?”. How would you respond to his question?

Question 2 Do you agree that most people rank religions qualitatively, even if outwardly they insist that all religions are equal? Discuss.

Question 3 When discussing the argument for privatizing religion, Keller considers the specific example of divorce law. Explain how your views on the purpose of marriage affect your view on the nature of divorce laws. That is, if you think marriage is for pleasure how would this influence your views on divorce law? If you believe that marriage has a higher purpose, how does this change your view?

Question 4 Do you have to be a Christian to be moral? Justify your answer.