Religious pluralism and "tolerance" is also a form of dogma [Archive]

jook

Jun 28th, 2007, 12:31 PM

The opposing viewpoint (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/keller.html) by leading Christian intellectuals:

The Current Intellectual State of Affairs in America:

by Tim Keller & Charles Garland

About every other week, I confront popular pluralist notions that have become a large part of the way Americans think. For example, pluralists contend that no one religion can know the fullness of spiritual truth, therefore all religions are valid. But while it is good to acknowledge our limitations, this statement is itself a strong assertion about the nature of spiritual truth. A common analogy is often cited to get the point across which I am sure you have heard — several blind men trying to describe an elephant. One feels the tail and reports that an elephant is thin like a snake. Another feels a leg and claims it is thick like a tree. Another touches its side and reports the elephant is a wall. This is supposed to represent how the various religions only understand part of God, while no one can truly see the whole picture. To claim full knowledge of God, pluralists contend, is arrogance. When I occasionally describe this parable, and I can almost see the people nodding their heads in agreement.

But then I remind the hearers that the only way this parable makes any sense, however, is if the person telling the story has seen the whole elephant. Therefore, the minute one says, 'All religions only see part of the truth,' you are claiming the very knowledge you say no one else has. And they are demonstrating the same spiritual arrogance they so often accuse Christians of. In other words, to say all is relative, is itself a truth statement but dangerous because it uses smoke and mirrors to make itself sound more tolerant than the rest. Most folks who hold this view think they are more enlightened than those who hold to absolutes when in fact they are really just as strong in their belief system as everyone else. I do not think most of these folks are purposefully using trickery or bad motives. This is because they seem to have even convinced themselves of the "truth" of their position, even though they claim "truth" does not exist or at least can't be known. Ironic isn't it? The position is intellectually inconsistent. (Tim Keller)

In its pure form Pluralism is a fact. It's not an opinion or a belief or a religion. In other words, not every one believes the same things. We live in a society that's very diverse, not just ethnically, but also religiously. But when pluralism starts to become a philosophy, when it starts to become a religious dogma, then it becomes a different animal. And that's what I want to call relativism -- or religious relativism, philosophical pluralism. It goes by different names but that is the dogmatic religious assertion that all religions are basically the same, that no one knows the truth about God. And no one can know the ultimate truth about God in a way that invalidates other peoples' religious opinions and the belief that it's arrogant to say that you have the truth religiously and it is arrogant to try to persuade other people to believe what you believe religiously. That's relativism, philosophical pluralism. And I would say that's the default belief of most people you run into in our city.-- whether they're religious or not, most people think about religion that way.

Here is what I want to urge on you and try to unpack in several ways. And that is that relativism is itself a religious belief. It is a dogma. Relativism is. It has affirmations and denials and a missionary force. One of the affirmations of relativism is that God is ultimately unknowable. No one can know the truth about God. But how do one know that to be true? This assumes an ultimate understanding of spiritual reality. All religions are ultimately the same. All religions are following a path to God. It doesn't matter how you believe, it matters how you live. Do you see this? Those are religious statements. Those are matters of religious beliefs, dogma. Doctrines! If people say, "No, I'm not religious. I'm saying you can't know. I'm saying, Nobody can know the truth about God. I’m not claiming that I've got a corner on it." But if you look at it closely, the statements of religious relativism are every bit as dogmatic as the statements of the Koran or the Bible. It's a religious dogma.

It has denials. Religious relativism denies with certainty that there is one God who is holy and just, who has taken on human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, who is our creator and judge. Who can only be appeased and known through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and faith in him. Relativism says that is false. It makes a religious assertion: we deny this, creedally, that that is not true. It's a dogmatic assertion that relativism makes. And -- relativism seeks to persuade those who do not believe it to believe it.

Somehow, the relativist has come to understand that he alone sees the full reality. He alone is in the airplane. He alone is the king who is not blind telling the parable of the elephant. Only relativism is timelessly and objectively true. Relativistic belief is accepted so it can be taught as public fact in America today even though we have seperation of church and state. I hear nonsensical statements like it is because of religion that all war starts - of course it is because of religion, but religion is an inescapable part of the human condition. Relativism also zealously fights to make sure no one believes in any absolutes while they must use their own absolute to establish this idea.

Now Christians have been known to be proud ....plenty of us. There are lots of arrogant Christians. But if you read the Bible, you see that Christians ought not to be arrogant. Arrogant Christians are betraying Christianity. And when we're arrogant, we're not believing the gospel. We're not being Biblical. But, ultimately, to hold a relativistic point of view, you have to turn the question back on yourself and doubt your own doubts and say, "Why aren't the relativists' religious beliefs arrogant? Why isn't it arrogant to say that you're the one in the airplane? Why isn't it arrogant to say you're the king who's not blind and can see the whole elephant?" Ultimately, if you judge your doubts the same way you judge other peoples' religion, then you find yourself hoisted on your own petard. Right? Yes. It's just as arrogant to claim relativism, as it is to claim religious truth.

The Christian is not better in any way than a pagan. There are probably many pagans who have lived more moral lives than the Christian. In fact the Christian believes Himself not morally fit for God - a person who's so desperately broken that unless Jesus Christ dies under the wrath of God in my place, I can never be reconciled to God and have fellowship with Him." There are lots of people wiser than us, lots of people who are more moral than we are, people who are more devoted to their religion than we are. If a person claims anything different, he is missing the gospel. It's why we ought to be teachable. When we talk to friends who don't know Christ, we ought to be learning, instead of just talking.

But, someone will say, you only believe this because you were raised where you were raised, right? You say you know the truth but really its just provincialism. You're a product of your culture. So, how can you say it's the only truth?" But if you're raised here, you're raised in a relativistic culture. Right? And so you believe -- that all religions are one. You're a relativist. That's just because of your mom and dad -- and because you grew up in LA or the like. If you were born in Indonesia, you would not be a relativist. So, therefore, relativism couldn't be true. It's just a cultural construct. Right? You only believe it because of where you were raised so don't make any dogmatic assertions about all religions being equal. That's just what your little culture believes. Once you get out and about in the world and are a little more cosmopolitan, you'll realize that that's just one view among many. The criticism has to apply to relativism if it has to apply to other religions, doesn't it?

So -- if relativism is your default mode, if that's what you've booted up with, because of where you were raised, let me appeal to you this way. At least look at it, doubt it, the way you doubt religion. Look at your own beliefs with the same critical apparatus you use to look at other people's beliefs. See that it's a religious dogma like others and see if it holds water as a religious dogma. Is it true? Is relativism true? Ask yourself this important question.

nskripchun

Jun 28th, 2007, 01:09 PM

The funny thing is that I don't think Sam Harris would consider himself a religiously plural. As a strong atheist, he pretty much considers all religions to be bunk.

The "elephant analogy" is a pretty common story, but the error in the logic of the story is that while each of the blind men experiences something different, the things that they experience aren't mutually exclusive, meaning one assertation doesn't invalidate the other.

To say that all religious beliefs are relative and compatible is to not really understand the huge differences out there. If I'm a believer in pseudo-Christian white nationalism, and my faith tells me that Jesus is white and that only whites are human beings while all people of color are mud-bloods descended from animals, there's not going to be any real agreement with someone from the Nation of Islam who believes that the first human beings were black and all white people are the evil, mutant pig-descendants of Yacub.

(ironically, the Nation of Islam is closer to "the truth" since pretty much all scientific and anthropological research points to the origin of humanity being Africa)

On the flipside, I do think there are important parallels between certain "more legitimate" systems of belief, such as the Abrahamic religious (Judaism / Christianity / Islam) and Buddhism. For example, the notion that a believer is saved only through sincere devotion and faith is paralleled between Protestant Christianity and contemporary forms of Japanese Pure Land (Jodo-shu) Buddhism.

I could ramble on and on, but IMO, serious and thoughtful ecumenism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical) is a lot more exciting and interesting than just a flat pluralism that waves its hands and says "ALL RELIGIONS ARE THE SAME".

jook

Jun 28th, 2007, 02:53 PM

To say that all religious beliefs are relative and compatible is to not really understand the huge differences out there. If I'm a believer in pseudo-Christian white nationalism, and my faith tells me that Jesus is white and that only whites are human beings while all people of color are mud-bloods descended from animals, there's not going to be any real agreement with someone from the Nation of Islam who believes that the first human beings were black and all white people are the evil, mutant pig-descendants of Yacub.

(ironically, the Nation of Islam is closer to "the truth" since pretty much all scientific and anthropological research points to the origin of humanity being Africa)

This is what happens when organized religion crossbreds with extreme forms of identity politics: big trouble. You have a group of people armed with dangerous ideas, a twisted, unrecognizable variety of their own religion, and what's more, the zealous conviction that "God" is on their side. The Bible itself warns a great deal about false teachings and the like.

I realize that in the context of identity politics and discussions about Asian or any other ethnic experience in a multicultural setting, a stance opposing "pluralism", "diversity", or "relativity" may seem troubling. But I believe there is a proper place for such concepts and other areas (such as spiritual truths) where they don't belong but are there anyway for none other than the fact that it is fashionable to do so according to the current zeitgeist. But, as the above article demonstrates, there is a popular tendency to conflate the two. This causes epistemological crises at the deepest levels of reasoned discernment.

Completely unrelated note: One thing I'll say about most debates revolving around identity politics issues, whether the lines be drawn along ethnic or gender lines (or both simultaneously), is that, inevitably, there are charges of disingenuity, hypocrisy, and double standards from either side. This is a central difficulty of most identity politics or enthocentrism when it comes to tackling issues involving inter-ethnic/gender conflict, that it is inherently an exercise in self-centrism (with "self" being, in this case, the particular group that one identifies with). But accusing someone of having, say, double standards, is to appeal to some Higher Standard, that applies to all, regardless of one's particular identity. It is a familiar pattern that repeats itself constantly and it compels one to wonder if there is some other Better Way.

Vetrean

Jun 28th, 2007, 08:07 PM

Thanks for the links, I found them pretty interesting.

theme

Jul 5th, 2007, 05:12 AM

i just realised

nskripchun = inscription

and for those who haven't guessed already

theme = the me

Heli

Jul 6th, 2007, 12:04 AM

I really think this discussion is meaningless. Religious pluralism is not really a belief as much as it is the reality in today's multi-cultured world. Here in the United States, Christians have to go to work with pagans everyday, and it is simply not practical for everyone to adopt a "I am holy and you are tainted" mentality.

Sure you can go ahead and argue how your religion has a complete view of the elephant and how everyone who believes in your God is going to heaven while the rest of us is going to burn in hell. But really who cares? There is probably a Muslim somewhere who is think the same thing about you. As long as people of different cultures and religion has to interact with each other and make connections, more and more people will see the reality of religious pluralism and subscribe to it.

Simply put, it's like arguing against the apple for dropping down from the tree because your religion says the apple should be floating up and accusing people of dogmatism for "believing in gravity"....

nskripchun

Jul 6th, 2007, 12:16 AM

i just realised

nskripchun = inscription

and for those who haven't guessed already

theme = the me

haha.

Well, all this time I thought

theme = theme

Personally I think "theme" is more catchy than "the me". Hahaha. Whenever I think of "the (blank)" names, I think of pro-wrestlers: The Rock, The Undertaker, etc.

lycheng

Jul 6th, 2007, 03:33 PM

I disagree with Tim Keller & Charles Garland characterization that religious pluralism is in itself a form of dogma. Here is my attempt at a rebuttal to the critical points of the article.

In other words, to say all is relative, is itself a truth statement but dangerous because it uses smoke and mirrors to make itself sound more tolerant than the rest. Most folks who hold this view think they are more enlightened than those who hold to absolutes when in fact they are really just as strong in their belief system as everyone else. I do not think most of these folks are purposefully using trickery or bad motives. This is because they seem to have even convinced themselves of the "truth" of their position, even though they claim "truth" does not exist or at least can't be known. Ironic isn't it? The position is intellectually inconsistent. (Tim Keller)

I believe this is a distortion of religious pluralism, at least my view of it. If spiritual enlightenment is the ultimate aim of all religions, then what we’re talking about is the method by which spiritual awareness or enlightenment can be attained. A religious pluralist simply believes there are multitudes of paths that can lead to spiritual enlightenment. I leave open to the individual to find their own way of describing what they mean by spiritual enlightenment or awareness.

In the language of the Abrahamic religions, it can be “The Truth” (with a capital “T”). Because Tim Keller is a Christian, he sees spiritual enlightenment that way. But spiritual enlightenment or awareness can take on forms that are less absolute and more experiential. It can be as simple as having a “transcendent” experience, or believing that “goodness” exists outside of the material world.

Better yet, a pluralist can even say that even though human beings might never know the absolute truth of our existence, it’s something that’s probably worth pursuing.

In its pure form Pluralism is a fact. It's not an opinion or a belief or a religion. In other words, not every one believes the same things. We live in a society that's very diverse, not just ethnically, but also religiously. But when pluralism starts to become a philosophy, when it starts to become a religious dogma, then it becomes a different animal. And that's what I want to call relativism -- or religious relativism, philosophical pluralism. It goes by different names but that is the dogmatic religious assertion that all religions are basically the same, that no one knows the truth about God.

Well, going from pluralism to relativism is quite a slippery slope, don’t you think? The authors are being very loose with words here.

Religious pluralism, as I’ve explained it, means there are a multitude of possible paths to spiritual enlightenment. Religious relativism, means they are all equivalent. Religious relativism is one logical step removed from religious pluralism because it makes a value judgment on all those possible paths that I’ve described.

Now I’m not arguing that a person can’t believe in both religious pluralism and religious relativism. What I’m objecting to is the equating the two via a slippery slope argument.

As a religious pluralist, I don’t think all paths to enlightenment are equal. For example, I believe that anyone who uses drugs to induce spiritual awareness is probably not seeking the same spiritual experience as someone who does it with pure meditation, or pure scripture reading, or pure acceptance of Christ. In fact, I would add the value judgment that drug induced spirituality is impure, and hence not an authentic spiritual path.

And no one can know the ultimate truth about God in a way that invalidates other peoples' religious opinions and the belief that it's arrogant to say that you have the truth religiously and it is arrogant to try to persuade other people to believe what you believe religiously. That's relativism, philosophical pluralism. And I would say that's the default belief of most people you run into in our city.-- whether they're religious or not, most people think about religion that way.

No, that is not relativism. That is anti-dogmatic or anti-arrogant. I purposefully avoid using the language of ultimate Truth because it is arrogant to say you know the ultimate Truth. I have no problem if you say you are on a path to truth, but to say your path is the only way for everyone … well, I’m sorry but that’s just too…. ARROGANT.

Here is what I want to urge on you and try to unpack in several ways. And that is that relativism is itself a religious belief. It is a dogma. Relativism is. It has affirmations and denials and a missionary force. One of the affirmations of relativism is that God is ultimately unknowable. No one can know the truth about God. But how do one know that to be true? This assumes an ultimate understanding of spiritual reality.

Clearly this article wants people to believe that if you don’t believe there’s an absolute spiritual Truth, you are committing the sin of relativism. Everything is the same; no one can judge right and wrong, good and bad, blah blah blah…

Furthermore, how is relativism a religious belief? Why does everything revolve around religious concepts?

Relativism is such an ambiguous term. Yes, it can be used to defend a philosophy that there is no absolute right or wrong. But it can also be used to help on understand there are multiple point of views. As someone growing up in two cultures, I can easily understand how an idea can be presented with different point of views. How is that threatening to Christians?

To be continued...

lycheng

Jul 6th, 2007, 06:41 PM

All religions are ultimately the same. All religions are following a path to God. It doesn't matter how you believe, it matters how you live. Do you see this? Those are religious statements. Those are matters of religious beliefs, dogma. Doctrines! If people say, "No, I'm not religious. I'm saying you can't know. I'm saying, Nobody can know the truth about God. I’m not claiming that I've got a corner on it." But if you look at it closely, the statements of religious relativism are every bit as dogmatic as the statements of the Koran or the Bible. It's a religious dogma.

Is ” It doesn't matter how you believe, it matters how you live.” really the same as:

“you must accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior in order to live a good and moral life”?

Really? :confused:

How is saying “I don’t know” dogmatic? It seems to me to be the ultimate statement of openness.

It has denials. Religious relativism denies with certainty that there is one God who is holy and just, who has taken on human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, who is our creator and judge. Who can only be appeased and known through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and faith in him. Relativism says that is false. It makes a religious assertion: we deny this, creedally, that that is not true. It's a dogmatic assertion that relativism makes. And -- relativism seeks to persuade those who do not believe it to believe it.
Again, the target is not pluralism, its relativism. This is really a misleading essay.

It’s also a poorly written essay because:
a) It fails to make a case that religious pluralism leads to religious relativism. By proclamation, the essay establishes that pluralism is the same as relativism.
b) Questions about life’s purpose, morality and ultimate truths are exclusively religious questions. Sure they have religious connotations, but they also can be viewed in a secular and philosophical perspective. Oops, I guess I am guilty of evil relativism just by saying this! :eek:

Somehow, the relativist has come to understand that he alone sees the full reality. He alone is in the airplane. He alone is the king who is not blind telling the parable of the elephant. Only relativism is timelessly and objectively true. Relativistic belief is accepted so it can be taught as public fact in America today even though we have seperation of church and state.
Just because I don’t have Jesus on my side doesn’t mean I’m a pathetic, lonely person adrift in the sea of life. But if I see a group of Bible carrying Missionaries come towards me, then yes… LEAVE ME ALONE!
I hear nonsensical statements like it is because of religion that all war starts - of course it is because of religion, but religion is an inescapable part of the human condition. Relativism also zealously fights to make sure no one believes in any absolutes while they must use their own absolute to establish this idea.
Statements like “Religion is at the root of all wars” is a bit overly simplistic. Yet, that has nothing to do with relativism or pluralism. By the way, where are the Relativist zealots that you're referring to?

Now Christians have been known to be proud ....plenty of us. There are lots of arrogant Christians. But if you read the Bible, you see that Christians ought not to be arrogant. Arrogant Christians are betraying Christianity. And when we're arrogant, we're not believing the gospel. We're not being Biblical.
If Christians shouldn’t be arrogant, then stop forcing you spiritual beliefs on others. Don't you guys get it… the point of spirituality is to transcend the material and think about things outside of yourselves. Converting people is a materialistic goal, and not a spiritual one.
But, ultimately, to hold a relativistic point of view, you have to turn the question back on yourself and doubt your own doubts and say, "Why aren't the relativists' religious beliefs arrogant?
Again, pluralism doesn’t necessarily mean relativism. Even if, for the sake of argument, that pluralism is the same as relativism, all relativism says is that all religious beliefs lead to the same result. How is allowing the possibility that different things can be the same an expression of as arrogance? Is there a superiority attitude in making something equivalent to another?

Besides, I don’t see groups of organized religious relativists knocking on people’s doors trying to convert them. To me, that is the ultimate expression of arrogance.
Why isn't it arrogant to say that you're the one in the airplane? Why isn't it arrogant to say you're the king who's not blind and can see the whole elephant?" Ultimately, if you judge your doubts the same way you judge other peoples' religion, then you find yourself hoisted on your own petard. Right? Yes. It's just as arrogant to claim relativism, as it is to claim religious truth.

The parable that you’ve described does appear to illustrate how people who only see on aspect of the elephant can come up with different ideas of what the object really is. In a way, it’s like different cultures interpreting common spiritual experience as different things, so I can see how the religious pluralists nod their heads in agreement to the analogy.

However, like all analogies, it is an imperfect comparison. The problem with the parable is that is presupposes the existence of one unitary object, the elephant, that only the narrator of the story can see. The article correctly points out that the narrator has a reference frame that is superior to the blind men feeling the elephant. In fact, not only is the reference frame superior, but it is the preferred reference frame because it entitles the narrator an understanding of the entire picture.

My argument is that many religious pluralists would, when pressed, leave open the definition of what constitutes spiritual truths. To me, that is the purest pluralist perspective because it doesn’t presuppose a preferred reference frame, ultimate Truth, or God. (pardon my alliteration)

The Christian is not better in any way than a pagan. There are probably many pagans who have lived more moral lives than the Christian. In fact the Christian believes Himself not morally fit for God
No disagreement here.

But, someone will say, you only believe this because you were raised where you were raised, right? You say you know the truth but really its just provincialism. You're a product of your culture. So, how can you say it's the only truth?" But if you're raised here, you're raised in a relativistic culture. Right? And so you believe -- that all religions are one. You're a relativist. That's just because of your mom and dad -- and because you grew up in LA or the like.
Well, yeah. The vast majority of religious people are religious because their parents were. Everyone is a product of their parents and their culture. If I didn’t grow up with religion in my family, then chances are I wouldn’t be religious. But I have to say, isn’t it better to grow up without religious indoctrination, and then, in adulthood, making a conscious choice?

The authors just threw out another phrase – “relativistic culture” as if the mainstream culture is geared to indoctrinate people into thinking that everything is relative. Gee, the last time I watched the news on TV, I get the sense that killing someone is still bad, and doing charity is still good.
So -- if relativism is your default mode, if that's what you've booted up with, because of where you were raised, let me appeal to you this way. At least look at it, doubt it, the way you doubt religion. Look at your own beliefs with the same critical apparatus you use to look at other people's beliefs. See that it's a religious dogma like others and see if it holds water as a religious dogma. Is it true? Is relativism true? Ask yourself this important question.
I was raised to think critically. This means I should analyze, examine and question even my own core beliefs. It’s such a letdown to see this is the concluding point in the essay.

A desire to view spirituality from a pluralistic approach is not religious dogma. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Dialectic

Jul 7th, 2007, 12:50 AM

Great posts, lc. The essay seems to be setting up a straw man, substituting healthy pluralism, which recognizes absolutes, with extreme relativism, which is inherently self-contradictory.

At the same time, there have been a lot of fairly extreme relativists out there, so the reaction is understandable, but to attack pluralism by treating it as relativism for the sake of propping up an ethnocentric religious dogma is not acceptable.

Jook, watch yourself. Ethnocentric Christianity which proclaims itself as an absolute right path to God has no intellectual or moral justification at this point in the development of North American and western European society as a whole. (It does have moral justification when dealing with certain sub-cultures, like youth gangs, for example.)

DONKEY

Jul 7th, 2007, 04:06 PM

better stick to Chick tracts they work better and are more entertaining

Heli

Jul 8th, 2007, 01:33 AM

better stick to Chick tracts they work better and are more entertaining

True but combating religious fanaticism is a close second.

tkguy

Jul 8th, 2007, 03:52 AM

It is a familiar pattern that repeats itself constantly and it compels one to wonder if there is some other Better Way.

First of what is your ethnicity and gender? The whole meaning of everything you write changes depending upon this.

jook

Jul 10th, 2007, 11:41 PM

Religious Pluralism

Gregory Koukl

The new definition of pluralism is not only indefensible, but it also discourages critical thinking about the real issues.

You know, I hate reading the newspaper. I would not pick up a single newspaper if I didn't have to do this show. I just don't care, to be honest with you. I'd rather read someone who has been dead for 300 years than some of these newspaper articles. Nevertheless, since I've got a show, it's good to be informed. Certainly, reading the newspaper you have wonderful opportunities to see how poorly people think about the critical issues. Apparently there was an article on January 27, where a Muslim thinker said something that sounded religiously pluralistic and people responded to it in the L.A. Times , Friday, February 10. This response comes from Edward Tabash. Here's what he says. Let me just read the thing, it's just two paragraphs and we will go from there.

"It was refreshing to see your article on the religious relativism of Abdul Kareem Surash in which this Iranian theologian is quoted as saying that all religious understanding is relative and that no one interpretation is absolute. Such a lesson in religious tolerance and pluralism is not just needed in Iran. In the United States, people like Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan and Jerry Falwell need to comprehend that they do not possess a monopoly in understanding God's will. Additionally, of course, it would be a great day for the world if the Pope would also adopt Surash's admonition to abandon religious absolutism."

As usual, I'm amazed at how frequently very sensible and intelligent people can make very foolish and absurd statements about the nature of truth. Those of you who were listening carefully to what I just read and those of you familiar with the suicide tactic will recognize a flaw here. This person is commenting that the nature of religious knowledge is merely relative, not absolute. That's what the Muslim scholar said, and Edward Tabash, who is writing this letter from Beverly Hills, agrees with him. Religious knowledge is merely relative. However, Tabash's statement itself is a statement about religious knowledge, making it merely relative, not absolute, according to his own rules. See the problem there? In other words, here is an absolute statement about religion that says one can't make any absolute statements about religion. The argument commits suicide.

Why should I believe that? That's a good question to ask of all so-called religious truth statements.

But there's more than one problem here. Not only is this point of view self-refuting, it's like saying, you can't trust anything about religion except for my view about religion, which is that you can't trust any other views about religion. Sounds self-serving. But there is another problem. It has to do with the statement that all religious understanding is relative and that no one interpretation is absolute. Now that's the statement apparently that the Iranian Muslim theologian made. Why should I believe that? That's a good question to ask of all so-called religious truth statements. Why should I believe that "all religious understanding is relative and that no one interpretation is absolute?"

I can actually prove that that is false, and I can do it very quickly.

Either God exists, or He doesn't exist. It is the law of excluded middle. Either God or no God. One of two categories. One or the other has to be true. They both cannot be true because of the Law of Non-contradiction. Not at the same time. And they both can't be false because of the Law of Excluded Middle. Simple. Either God exists or He doesn't exist.

Did you notice, by the way, that both statements are religious statements? Now, maybe I don't know which one is true, but I'll tell you one thing, one of them is, which means there is such a thing, at least to some degree, as absolute religious truth. It is either an absolute that God does not exist, or it is an absolute that He does. One or the other. Therefore, it is a false claim that all religious statements are merely relative. Do you see that? This is not that hard. Here is a scholar, though, making a comment that is just absolutely foolish. Why should I believe what he has to say when it is so easy to refute it?

jook

Jul 10th, 2007, 11:46 PM

Is it reasonable to believe that there simply is no spiritual truth about the whole world, no true God to discover, and we're stuck with merely relativistic inventions of our own minds? If there is not such truth to discover, then why search? Why engage any religion whatsoever--Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Animism? Any "ism." There is nothing to discover, just all kinds of things that we invent. That is, by the way, what it means when one says that religious truth is relative and it is not absolute. It means that there is nothing out there to discover. We make it up.

I'll give you a counter-example. Either God exists or He doesn't exist. That's a fact out there to discover. Both of those things are religious statements so there must be some religious truth that is out there to discover.

Maybe he means that we cannot have flawless knowledge , but that's a different issue. It's possible for anyone to be mistaken, but that's not what he said. He said there was no absolute religious truth. The writer of the letter, Edward Tabash, is giving him a hearty "amen." My response is, that is simply foolish.

I think that the current notion of religious pluralism is stupid. (I asked Melinda if I could say stupid on the radio. People don't like that word. They tell their kids not to use it. I think it is a useful word in the right situation, and this is the right situation.) I don't think that people who use this current notion of pluralism are stupid. In fact, they're quite bright, generally, which makes it all the more surprising that people who are rather bright rely on rather stupid concepts.

The stupid concept is the idea that all religions are basically equally true. That is just flat out stupid. Only a nitwit would really hold to something like that, having really thought it through. I suspect that most people haven't really thought it through, and those that do--and I should qualify this--are not nit-wits, but are not holding it for a rational reason. They are holding it for a personal, subjective, emotional reason.

This comment by this Iranian theologian I think is false, but it is commendable in one sense. I do agree with the larger point that it's commendable to take a spirit of genuine pluralism in the classical sense, a "live and let live" policy, which you don't often find in Muslim circles. I mean that quite literally. Muslims who are spiritual free-thinkers are liable to get executed if they don't hold to the party line. That's what I mean. I'm talking a "live and let live" policy, literally. That's good pluralism. When you can say, I disagree with you but I am not going to kill you for it.

But notice in this article the definition of pluralism shifts dramatically. This person says live and let live is good, therefore now "such a lesson in religious tolerance and pluralism is not just needed in Iran but in the United States." Then they refer to Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan and Jerry Falwell. Wait a minute. These three people are not saying that if you disagree then I can kill you. They are just simply saying that they're right and others are wrong.

Notice how the definition of religious pluralism has changed: in the first case, live and let live, and in the second case, you can't say somebody else is wrong because that is just not pluralistic. That is the view that is stupid because when you say that, you are saying that the people who are saying it are wrong and you are right, committing the same crime that you are saying they are committing.

Notice how the definition of religious pluralism has changed: in the first case, live and let live, and in the second case, you can't say somebody else is wrong because that is just not pluralistic.

Some of you remember the caller from yesterday, Lee, who fell into the very same error right before our ears, not eyes. Lee, a Jewish man, was reprimanding me in a very terse way for promoting the Christian idea that Christianity was true and all other religions were false. What was wrong with that? This view spreads hate, he said.

He said, "We shouldn't criticize other people's religions." I said, "Then why are you criticizing mine?" He said, "It's wrong to say other religions are wrong." I said, "Then why are you saying my religion is wrong?" He said, "You're encouraging hate by saying only your view is right and others are mistaken." I said, "Then why are you spreading hate by publicly reprimanding me saying that only your view is right and mine is mistaken?"

Do you see how these arguments are self-defeating? And how this second version of tolerance is just silly? In order to tolerate somebody and be loving you can't assert your point of view as being correct. That's what they are saying. It is hateful. It is spiteful. It is like the guy yesterday who defined homophobia for me as someone who thinks that homosexuality is immoral. That's not a definition, that's just a name. I don't agree with your view, so you call me a name. A homophobe. Now, is that loving? Of course not. You see, these people can't play by their own pluralistic rules.

This is where the bottom falls out of this new definition of pluralism. The only way one can defend it is by violating their own principles of pluralism, which goes to show that this view just doesn't work. People rant and rave about being judgmental--all the time delivering their own judgments. And boy, I wish we could catch this: because they spend their time abrading people for thinking critically about the issues instead of asking the critical question themselves: Which religious view is more worthy of belief? They discourage proper critical thinking about these issues.

Isn't it unusual that this view encourages people never to assess the truth value of their religious claims. It's saying, don't think about those things, don't criticize, don't say somebody is wrong. If you buy that, then you can't criticize even the assessment of your own spiritual claims. Yet at the same time these are the folks who fault Christians who they think are blindly following the Bible. Religious truth claims must be challenged if we're to have any confidence whatsoever that they're true. If the truth claims of Christianity can be challenged--as they constantly are by these same religious pluralism devotees--why can't the truth claims of other religions also be challenged? It seems to me that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Mr. Tabash can only say that any individual who says that others are out of step with God's will--Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, for example--are intolerant and wrong because they claim to know what God's will actually is. But according to Edward Tabash, because Robertson, Falwell, and Buchanan think they know what God's will is, then they don't. But Tabash thinks he knows what God's will is, apparently, because these people are out of step with it. So then he must be out of step with God by his own rules.

Let's get rid of all this silly talk. Let's get down to the more vital questions. What is God's will, after all? How can we know it? How can we be confident of our knowledge? Let's think about those questions instead of throwing stupid arguments at everybody to get people to stop doing the critical thinking on the critical issues.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1995 Gregory Koukl

jook

Jul 11th, 2007, 12:17 AM

From The Screwtape Letters

A letter from Screwtape to Wormwood

I note what you say about guiding your patient's reading and taking care that he sees a good deal of his materialist friend. But are you not being a trifle naive? It sounds as if argument was the way to keep him out of the Enemy's clutches. That might have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier. At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as a result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing around inside his head. He doesnt think of doctrines as primarily 'true' or 'false', but as 'academic' or 'practical', 'outworn', or 'contemporary', 'conventional', or 'ruthless'. Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Dont waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous - that it is the philosophy of the future. That's the sort of thing he cares about.

lycheng

Jul 11th, 2007, 02:41 AM

Hey Jook,

Do us all a favor and stop regurgitating someone else's religious ramblings. If you really are here to preach via other people's writing, then at least give us references and links to the original sources. I don't have to Goggle stuff just to find background information.

Scowl

Jul 11th, 2007, 03:09 AM

Do us all a favor and stop regurgitating someone else's religious ramblings. If you really are here to preach via other people's writing, then at least give us references and links to the original sources.

Amen to that.

Bluejives, if all you're going to do is copy & paste articles, you might as well save yourself the trouble and just put up the links. People tend to lose interest when you just throw articles at them instead of talking to them.

jook

Jul 12th, 2007, 03:12 PM

I disagree with Tim Keller & Charles Garland characterization that
religious pluralism is in itself a form of dogma. Here is my attempt at a rebuttal to the
critical points of the article.

I believe this is a distortion of religious pluralism, at least my view of it. If spiritual
enlightenment is the ultimate aim of all religions, then what we’re talking about is the
method by which spiritual awareness or enlightenment can be attained. A religious pluralist
simply believes there are multitudes of paths that can lead to spiritual enlightenment. I
leave open to the individual to find their own way of describing what they mean by spiritual
enlightenment or awareness.

Can I ask what your own personal interpretation of "spiritual enlightenment or awareness" is
then? I am glad that at least you acknowledge that all religions have spiritual enlightenment
as the ultimate aim. Also, do you believe in God or some Higher Being?

Also, the fact that we must seek spiritual enlightenment implies that the world and humans are,
by default, not spiritually enlightened. Why is that ? Why are we in a spiritually unenlightened
state?

In Christianity, "spiritual enlightenment" is known as justification, sanctification, covenant,
and salvation. These are clearly defined. It means being right before God. God is the reference
point. The path is through Christ. Christianity tells us why the world is spiritually
unenlightened and how it got that way.

In the language of the Abrahamic religions, it can be “The Truth” (with a capital “T”). Because
Tim Keller is a Christian, he sees spiritual enlightenment that way. But spiritual enlightenment
or awareness can take on forms that are less absolute and more experiential. It can be as simple
as having a “transcendent” experience, or believing that “goodness” exists outside of the material
world.

Yes, there are certain aspects of spirituality that are experiential and specific to the person.
But when we talk of dogma, we are talking of solid foundational truths, not flakey experience.
Is there a God? Is Man fundamentally good or bad? What is the ultimate source of spiritual truth
or enlightenment? Those are questions of dogma. Dogma refers to fudamental first principles which
have a huge, profound effects on how the rest of the belief system is constructed. I am sure you
would agree that a belief system based upon "There is God" is radically different from
one based on 'There is no God". Similary for ones based on "God saves humanity" versus "humanity
saves itself".

Two Christians may have different ideas of what God's will means for them personally. But the fact
remains that they both believe in God and that there is such a thing as "God's will". Dogma refers
to those truths independent of the individual or experience.

Two physicists may solve a particular physics problem using different methods. But they are both
physicists because they both use the same fundamental first principles which are canonical.

The reason why Christianity can speak of Truth with authority is because the perfect God is the
ultimate reference, not fallible human beings (who are, by your own admission, spiritually
unenlightened by default). Truth is not a function of whimsical human subjectivity or the current
zeitgeist. Truth is independent of our emotions, feelings, experience, etc.
Spiritual truth is revealed through divine revelation, which is eternal.

Better yet, a pluralist can even say that even though human beings might never know the absolute
truth of our existence, it’s something that’s probably worth pursuing.

OK, let's explore that statement. How do we know then, in our quest for truth, that we've arrived
at the truth? If someone comes along and says "Here is truth!", how can we know that is truth?
What is the criteria? Once we've established the criteria, how do all the different paths,
including Christianity, measure up?

That is the objective of interfaith dialogue. But all too often, religious relatvism, which
sometimes is really "political correctness for religion", tries to impose a forced neutrality
and stifle meaningful and critical discussions under the guise of "tolerance". By the way,
tolerance means allowing due respect and decorum despite differences in ideology. By definition,
we "tolerate" BECAUSE we are different, not because we are the same and in agreement. But what does
secular society try to do to Christianity? It tries to put a gag. Secular society says it is
wrong to talk about God, pray in schools, and share the gospel. But one is NOT a Christian if
one doesnt do those things. Furthermore, secular society tries to paint Christians with broad,
unsavory stereotypes as "bible thumpers". How is that not different from common, garden variety
racism that we are so concerned about here? So effectively society-at-large tries to discredit
Christianity, under the banner of "tolerance". That is not tolerance. That is blatent hypocrisy.

Well, going from pluralism to relativism is quite a slippery slope, don’t you think? The authors
are being very loose with words here.

Religious pluralism, as I’ve explained it, means there are a multitude of possible paths to
spiritual enlightenment. Religious relativism, means they are all equivalent. Religious relativism
is one logical step removed from religious pluralism because it makes a value judgment on all those
possible paths that I’ve described.

Now I’m not arguing that a person can’t believe in both religious pluralism and religious relativism.
What I’m objecting to is the equating the two via a slippery slope argument.

As a religious pluralist, I don’t think all paths to enlightenment are equal. For example, I believe
that anyone who uses drugs to induce spiritual awareness is probably not seeking the same spiritual
experience as someone who does it with pure meditation, or pure scripture reading, or pure acceptance
of Christ. In fact, I would add the value judgment that drug induced spirituality is impure, and
hence not an authentic spiritual path.

I'm sorry but where did you get these definitions of religious pluralism and relativism? I am
sure you would agree that in order to have a meaningful discussion it is important to at least
agree as to what certain terms mean.

On some college campuses there are chapels where the facade may show the symbols of the major
world religions (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity) simultaneously. That's religious
pluralism. It is the policy governing that chapel. Pluralism, not relativism, says all the paths
are equivalent and valid, and uses interfaith dialogue to find common ground.

Relativism is the individual's response to pluralism. Relativism says: given "multiple paths to
spiritual enlightenment", I pick path A or B, or some wierd combo of A,B,C, and D, or some new
form of spirituality X, or even "none of the above". The word relativism itself begs the question
"relative to what?" That in turn implies a reference point. The reference point is Self
(my background, upbringing, past history, experience, etc). This understanding of religious
relativism is in agreement with the authors of the OP, who spend far more time thinking about
such matters in a professional capacity than you and I. Relativism says
"what works for you works for you, and what works for me works for me".

Hence, this statement

"As a religious pluralist, I don’t think all paths to enlightenment are equal."

is self-contradictory.

And this statement,

"I leave open to the individual to find their own way of describing what they mean by spiritual
enlightenment or awareness."

makes you a religious relativist, not a pluralist.

Furthermore, the two statements above collide with one another.

Less convolution and more consistency please!

jook

Jul 12th, 2007, 03:12 PM

No, that is not relativism. That is anti-dogmatic or anti-arrogant. I purposefully avoid using
the language of ultimate Truth because it is arrogant to say you know the ultimate Truth. I have
no problem if you say you are on a path to truth, but to say your path is the only way for everyone
… well, I’m sorry but that’s just too…. ARROGANT.

While and you most people seem terribly concerned about man's arrogance towards fellow man, we
lose sight of a larger and more crucial issue, which is mankind's arrogance toward God the Creator.

The Christian mind is much more concerned with the latter, and statements such as this

"I leave open to the individual to find their own way of describing what they mean by spiritual
enlightenment or awareness."

Whether you like it or not, that is a dogmatic statement. You are saying "Spiritual enlightenment is
achieved through Man's own effort". It is the opposite of Christianity, which says spiritual
truth comes from God and salvation from sin comes through Christ the Son of God alone.

Here is the dogma of relativism. Human relativism replaces "God" with "Self" at the throne.
Don't you think it is the height of arrogance to presume that the source of spiritual truths
and enlightenment, which rests solely within the province of the divine, comes from human
effort? The same human effort which is tainted with sin or spiritual unenlightenment,
which is the whole point of the need for salvation or spiritual enlightenment in the first place?

If the search for truth or enlightenment is the sole province of Man, and not God, then Man
will from time to time come up with what he thinks is "spiritual truth", which will be half-baked
at best, and try to "impose" on others anyway. History tells us this. But if you think you attained
"spiritual enlightenment", but dont bother to help your fellow man achieve it also, for fear of
"imposing" or being "arrogant", and leave your fellow suffering man to their own fate, to figure it
out on their own, then you are guilt of negligence, apathy, moral cowardice, and selfishness.
What a conundrum.

There is the arrogance of Man saying to God "I dont need you" or "You dont even exist". If the
created cannot even honor the Creator's existence, what makes anyone think that creation will
respect the existence of fellow creation? There's human arrogance right there, and much worse.

jaehwan

Jul 12th, 2007, 07:35 PM

Jook, or Bluejives, or whoever you are:

Your self-righteousness is getting annoying.

While and you most people seem terribly concerned about man's arrogance towards fellow man, we
lose sight of a larger and more crucial issue, which is mankind's arrogance toward God the Creator.

God doesn't exist. Or at least he is unlikely to exist, given the fact that his Holy Word has been completely wrong on a number of accounts, such as when it stated the the world was flat and that the sun moves relative to the earth. I think I had this conversation with you when you were posting as "bluejives."

That being the case, even if God exists, he has been so reluctant to confirm his own existence that it is unreasonable to expect non-Christians to acknowledge the alleged existence of God. As Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot parable illustrates, the burden of proof is therefore on you. So don't be asserting the existence of God unless you can prove it. If you can't, abide by rules of respect and logic and admit that you don't know for certain that God exists.

"I leave open to the individual to find their own way of describing what they mean by spiritual
enlightenment or awareness."

Whether you like it or not, that is a dogmatic statement. You are saying "Spiritual enlightenment is
achieved through Man's own effort". It is the opposite of Christianity, which says spiritual
truth comes from God and salvation from sin comes through Christ the Son of God alone.

Um, no. No, no, no. An example of a dogmatic statement would be "Jesus loves you" or "The world was created in seven days;" a "dogmatic statement" by definition must be based on a tenet or doctrine.

Lycheng's statement was just a personal opinion. It's especially non-dogmatic since he puts the decision-making ability into the hands of a thinking individual, rather than reverting to a book written centuries ago.

Here is the dogma of relativism. Human relativism replaces "God" with "Self" at the throne.
Don't you think it is the height of arrogance to presume that the source of spiritual truths
and enlightenment, which rests solely within the province of the divine, comes from human
effort? The same human effort which is tainted with sin or spiritual unenlightenment,
which is the whole point of the need for salvation or spiritual enlightenment in the first place?

Don't you think it's the height of arrogance to stubbornly state that God exists and that others should mold their thinking around this so-called God when you haven't provided a shred of evidence that there's anyone up there? Everyone else must support their statements with logic or proof; don't you think it's arrogant of you to assume that these same rules don't apply to you?

There is the arrogance of Man saying to God "I dont need you" or "You dont even exist". If the
created cannot even honor the Creator's existence, what makes anyone think that creation will
respect the existence of fellow creation? There's human arrogance right there, and much worse.

What are you smoking? Atheists don't say to God, "I don't need you" or "you don't even exist," rather they are saying it to people like you. Why would they say anything to God when they don't believe he exists? So unless you think that you yourself are God (which would be the height of arrogance), you should keep the conversation honest by acknowledging that there are only people involved in these conversations.

Scowl

Jul 12th, 2007, 09:45 PM

And once again we have hit that same block that obstructs meaningful discussion between Christians and atheists/agnostics ever since the internet was created.

Look, guys, it's real simple. In order to have a fruitful dialogue, certain basic assertions must be agreed upon as fundamental truths. Every Christian argument stems from the assertion that God, as defined by Christian beliefs, exists. Every non-Christian argument stems from the assertion that God, as defined by Christian beliefs, does not necessarily exist. That part needs to be resolved first before going any further. But I guess we all know that people just want to argue over the internet.

It's like trying to argue racism with white people who don't believe in white privilege. It's a pointless waste of time. You're not going to get anywhere unless your only real purpose is in belittling the other guy.

kwak76

Jul 12th, 2007, 10:08 PM

I scan through this thread and not really going to take sides because I think this thread just has too much writing that is just going in circle.
Keep it simple is what I think.

If you believe in God..great. If you don't ..great. Up to you guys. I think it's wrong to force someone to believe in something. This goes both ways but considering how some people think their thinking is correct will argue to death their view point.

jaehwan

Jul 13th, 2007, 02:16 AM

Look, guys, it's real simple. In order to have a fruitful dialogue, certain basic assertions must be agreed upon as fundamental truths. Every Christian argument stems from the assertion that God, as defined by Christian beliefs, exists. Every non-Christian argument stems from the assertion that God, as defined by Christian beliefs, does not necessarily exist. That part needs to be resolved first before going any further. But I guess we all know that people just want to argue over the internet.

Scowl,

It's not symmetrical. The burden of proof rests on the person asserting that God exists, not on the person who questions the existence of God:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

lycheng

Jul 13th, 2007, 02:56 AM

Vetrean

Jul 13th, 2007, 01:17 PM

Scowl,

It's not symmetrical. The burden of proof rests on the person asserting that God exists, not on the person who questions the existence of God:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

No, it's pretty symmetrical. The point isn't 'who proves it,' it's 'you're not going to get anywhere because you can't agree on basic guidelines as to how/what to debate.' jook argues 'this is true according to my doctrine, and this is why blahblahblah.' You argue 'your doctrine is false, or anyway, you haven't proved it, so it doesn't matter.' There was never a common ground for you to argue.

What are you smoking? Atheists don't say to God, "I don't need you" or "you don't even exist," rather they are saying it to people like you. Why would they say anything to God when they don't believe he exists? So unless you think that you yourself are God (which would be the height of arrogance), you should keep the conversation honest by acknowledging that there are only people involved in these conversations.

Why are you nitpicking? 'Atheists say to God "I don't need you/you don't exist"' is just showing what their attitude towards a 'God' is. By choosing not to believe in 'God,' they are making that statement. Whether it's specifically directed to God doesn't matter. Person A says to Person B 'I don't need Person C.' Does this mean Person C could not interpret it as 'Person A said he doesn't need me?' Obviously, this was not jook's original statement, but the meaning should be obvious. Anything past that is nitpicking.

There is the arrogance of Man saying to God "I dont need you" or "You dont even exist". If the
created cannot even honor the Creator's existence, what makes anyone think that creation will
respect the existence of fellow creation? There's human arrogance right there, and much worse.

Honoring an existence that is questionable is not the same as honoring an existence that is not. You can attribute things in this world to God, but you cannot prove that God is there and that these things did indeed stem from him. You CAN prove that your fellow creation is there. I don't find it particularly arrogant.

While we’re on the subject of being wrong, do you believe a true Christian can say something like: “I might be wrong about God?”

I'd like to know jook's answer as well, but I don't think that doubt would keep you from being a Christian. Obviously, you would still have to trust and believe in Christ, but admitting 'yes, I could be wrong' shouldn't invalidate anything. I don't think having faith in something necessarily means discounting the other possibilities by default.

Just my two cents, ignore me if you wish.

Scowl

Jul 13th, 2007, 02:05 PM

Bluejives, you've changed, man.

No, it's pretty symmetrical. The point isn't 'who proves it,' it's 'you're not going to get anywhere because you can't agree on basic guidelines as to how/what to debate.' jook argues 'this is true according to my doctrine, and this is why blahblahblah.' You argue 'your doctrine is false, or anyway, you haven't proved it, so it doesn't matter.' There was never a common ground for you to argue.

Exactly.

In other words, it's all one big waste of time.

jaehwan

Jul 13th, 2007, 02:26 PM

No, it's pretty symmetrical. The point isn't 'who proves it,' it's 'you're not going to get anywhere because you can't agree on basic guidelines as to how/what to debate.' jook argues 'this is true according to my doctrine, and this is why blahblahblah.' You argue 'your doctrine is false, or anyway, you haven't proved it, so it doesn't matter.' There was never a common ground for you to argue.

It isn't even the least bit symmetrical. You need to learn to distinguish between doctrine and logic. One is based on "faith," the other is based on thinking.

Common sense dictates that if I claim that the world is created by a guy who died for our sins, or if I claim that the world is created by a celestial teapot or a flying spaghetti monster, or if I claim that Santa Claus flies around the world every December 24th, or if I claim any other doctrine, then the burden is on me to prove it. If I can't prove it, then in order to have a respectful discussion with someone who doesn't share my beliefs, then I must argue solely on what can be established. You can believe whatever you want, and you have the right to congregate based on that belief, but when it comes to talking to others and having a civil conversation, the burden of proof is on you.

You see this dynamic whenever fundies attack gay people. They say, "God says your lifestyle is a sin." When you ask them to prove it, they pull out a Bible verse. My response is that the burden of proof is on the fundies. First, they need to prove that God exists. Then they need to prove that the Bible is his word. Then they need to prove that he says it's a sin to be gay. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the non-believer.

If you've ever seen a court hearing, a prosecutor can't just go into court and say, "You did it" without proof. He can't say, "I believe that you did it" and expect a jury to just agree. He needs to prove it, and if he doesn't try to prove it, he can be held in contempt. The defense, on the other hand, is under no such obligation.

Why are you nitpicking? 'Atheists say to God "I don't need you/you don't exist"' is just showing what their attitude towards a 'God' is. By choosing not to believe in 'God,' they are making that statement. Whether it's specifically directed to God doesn't matter. Person A says to Person B 'I don't need Person C.' Does this mean Person C could not interpret it as 'Person A said he doesn't need me?' Obviously, this was not jook's original statement, but the meaning should be obvious. Anything past that is nitpicking.

Atheists are not saying anything to God, and your example is a typical construction that Christian apologists like to use. It's not nitpicking; it's setting a correct foundation for discussion. If you said, "The tooth fairy doesn't exist," you would think it ridiculous if I said that you were telling her that she didn't exist. You'd find it equally ridiculous if I said you were being arrogant against the tooth fairy and that you were insulting her and hurting her feelings. You'd say, "She doesn't exist! Get over it!"

And maybe you'd be wrong. You can't prove that she doesn't exist, and I can't prove that she does.

But, as I mentioned above, the burden of proof is on the believer. If I can't prove her existence, then it is unreasonable for me to invoke her when talking to you or talking to someone who believes that Santa Claus, not the tooth fairy, is actually the one replacing teeth with money.

jaehwan

Jul 13th, 2007, 02:35 PM

Exactly.

In other words, it's all one big waste of time.

Scowlie,

I would strongly strongly strongly disagree. We have a president who invaded Iraq based on what God supposedly told him to do (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm). Thousands of people are dead as a result. Darwinism is being kicked out of the classrooms by creationists. Millions die because our fundamentalist president is preventing stem cell research.

Establishing and pushing general rules of logic and conduct is not a waste of time. There is no symmetry between science and religion; one is based on rational thinking, the other is based on faith. People can believe whatever they want, but we shouldn't allow them to get in the way of progress.

jook

Jul 13th, 2007, 05:24 PM

Well Jook, after finally reading your original writing, I have to agree with Scowl and Kwak. This debate appears to be heading in the same direction as most other religious debates on the internet – no real attempt at understanding each other, just arguing for the sake of arguing. But I’m going to give it another shot because I think religion is an important issue.

I agree. I'm not here to be unnecessarily hostile or to have an argument for argument's sake. I'm here because this is a section on religion, ostensibly for the purpose of talking about religion, and the last time I checked, Christianity was a religion too.

In fact, the thing that attracted me to contribute is your thesis statement: I saw it as an extremist position, and I was afraid someone would use it justify religious oppression.

It is not an extremist position to ask people, who may be anti-Christian in some way, to be intellectually honest with themselves and re-examine their own motives, beliefs, attitudes, and thinking patterns. That was the purpose of the OP. It really didn't seem like a call for oppression but more understanding, just from a different perspective. Once in a while, it is worthwhile to listen to what Christians have to say about the human condition, even if you're not a Christian yourself.

But anyone can be on the receiving end of oppression.

People seem to be concerned about the dangers of spiritual absolutes. Perhaps in an earlier age. But today, there is a different source of danger. I ask the same people to consider the other end of the spectrum: spiritual anarchy. That is what post-modernism and relativism fosters. Nowadays, people know too much, yet at the same time, nothing at all. We really live in an incredibly confusing age, where a multitude of different, often inconsistent ideas, beliefs, and philosophies compete with one another, and people are not sure of anything anymore. There is a danger in that also. We're headed right into it.

Beliefs and ideas, or lack thereof, always have consequences.

I mention my motivation because I had no intention of getting into an argument on the existence of God. You should have picked that up through my use of “spiritual awareness or enlightenment”, quite frankly.

But since you asked directly what my personal interpretation of "spiritual enlightenment or awareness", I’ll tell you. I am a humanist who believes that God or gods probably doesn’t exist. When I say God or gods, I include both the Abrahamic /Monotheistic description as well as other beliefs which seek to anthropomorphize a non-material creator or prime-mover (ie. Hindu, Greek or Roman gods, etc.).

But you strike me as someone who seeks spiritual awareness or enlightenment anyway.

When I say probably doesn’t exist, I want to emphasize the word probably. Probably is a good word because I really don’t know if he doesn’t exist. All I know is that I haven’t had the God experience. In case you’ve missed it, probably also means God might exist and I might be wrong.

While we’re on the subject of being wrong, do you believe a true Christian can say something like: “I might be wrong about God?”

I have thought about that. If I'm wrong, if there is no God, if Christianity was just some incredibly elaborate make-believe tale, why then my ultimate fate is no different from what any atheist nor agnostic has already accepted for himself. After I die, that's it. The End.

And what about yourself? Have you pondered the reverse situation?

With the existence of God issue out of the way, can we get back to the subject of what Dogma means? From your writings, you seem to imply that Dogma is the same as an axiomatic truth that people accept as fact without the need for evidence. Knowledge that is self-evident. You even made an analogy with fundamental first principals of physics, if I recall, saying that even in physics you must have canonical truths.

First, I’d like to clarify your physics analogy because I know something about physics since I studied it in college and grad school. While certainly first principles in physics exist, and for all practical purposes, are viewed by professors and students in a canonical manor (taken as an accepted principle), it is NOT something to be accepted as fact without the need for evidence.

Physics, as a branch of science is built upon making statements about the world that can be experimentally falsified. Take Newton’s third law for example. By action, Newton really meant Force. This is a first principle that can be experimentally tested to be false. Wikipeida has this nice illustration of a simple test of the Third Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Skaters_showing_newtons_third_law.png

Can you design an experiment to a Christian First Principle such that it might lead to a false result? If you can, then Christianity would be a science. Otherwise, one can conclude that Christianity is outside of science.

http://www.leestrobel.com/Creator.htm

The fact that Christianity, or any other spiritual knowledge is outside of science is totally okay with me. As I said in my first post, spirituality deals with things and concepts outside our material world, while science deals with things inside the material world.

Now back to self-evident truths and dogma. I disagree with your interpretation that Dogma is synonymous with self-evident truth. I say:
Take for example the following truth that I take as self-evident, for which you objected to in your earlier post:Yeah, that sounds true to me. It makes sense to me right now. But you know what? I can see how someone can honestly say:
I’m not going to get in your face and challenge you if you said that. If I did that, then my “it doesn’t matter” statement would be dogma.
So the bottom line is that there’s a stubbornness quality about a dogmatic statement. Dogma also expresses an attitude that you’d better believe it, or else!

I have more to say about your response that I was contradictory when I said:

It would appear stubborness is a trait shared by both sides of the argument.

But I really don't understand what "stubborness" has to do with whether something is true or not. Just because we don't happen to like something or it doesn't appeal to our sensibilities means its true or false?

I find the law of gravity to be very stubborn also. Every time I hold something, and then release it, it always falls to the ground. Always. Very stubborn, this thing called gravity.

Scowl

Jul 13th, 2007, 10:13 PM

Scowlie,

I would strongly strongly strongly disagree. We have a president who invaded Iraq based on what God supposedly told him to do (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm). Thousands of people are dead as a result. Darwinism is being kicked out of the classrooms by creationists. Millions die because our fundamentalist president is preventing stem cell research.

Establishing and pushing general rules of logic and conduct is not a waste of time. There is no symmetry between science and religion; one is based on rational thinking, the other is based on faith. People can believe whatever they want, but we shouldn't allow them to get in the way of progress.

None of that will be solved by what's been going on in this thread. Logic and reason are fine things, but they hold power over only a minority of the population. They certainly won't have any effect on Dubya. Politics, power and influence are what drives our leadership and our society. Someone could scientifically disprove the existence of God without any doubt whatsoever, and that still won't make a difference to those who don't want to hear it. I'm not even sure that it would do much to dent the power of the Church.

I think you misunderstand what I've been saying. I'm not saying anything about whether or not God exists, or who is right or whatever, although I think my previous posts make my position quite clear. I'm saying that, when discussions are carried out the way it has been carried out in this thread, no one is going to get anywhere.

The way I see it, if there's going to be any meaningful communication between beliefs, three conditions must first be met:

1) It must be reasonable, open-minded people engaging in the dialogue in a civil manner.

2) There must be basic, fundamental principles and assertions agreed upon that they can then build on.

3) There must exist the mutual desire to come to some sort of joint understanding.

The first one is rare enough. I've never seen any religious discussion get any farther than that. I don't see a point in having the discussion in the first place if there isn't even so much as the intent to meet those conditions. It all comes down to people trying to disprove each other's beliefs.

jaehwan

Jul 14th, 2007, 12:52 AM

None of that will be solved by what's been going on in this thread. Logic and reason are fine things, but they hold power over only a minority of the population. They certainly won't have any effect on Dubya. Politics, power and influence are what drives our leadership and our society. Someone could scientifically disprove the existence of God without any doubt whatsoever, and that still won't make a difference to those who don't want to hear it. I'm not even sure that it would do much to dent the power of the Church.

Well, I agree with your assessment of the Decider in Chief, but I'd disagree with the idea that not anyone will listen. The fundies are powerful, no doubt, but scientific questioning has changed society appreciably over the years. Dubya is getting in the way of stem cell research and Darwinism, but I don't think it's as bad as it was during the days of Galileo. Over the past couple hundred years, I'd say that science and rationality have definitely made progress over doctrine. They've definitely helped weaken the power of the church.

I think you misunderstand what I've been saying. I'm not saying anything about whether or not God exists, or who is right or whatever, although I think my previous posts make my position quite clear. I'm saying that, when discussions are carried out the way it has been carried out in this thread, no one is going to get anywhere.

No, I understand, and I'm not saying that you believe or don't believe in God. I obviously don't believe in God, but I agree that that's not the point.

I'll state my disagreement below.

The way I see it, if there's going to be any meaningful communication between beliefs, three conditions must first be met:

1) It must be reasonable, open-minded people engaging in the dialogue in a civil manner.

2) There must be basic, fundamental principles and assertions agreed upon that they can then build on.

3) There must exist the mutual desire to come to some sort of joint understanding.

The first one is rare enough. I've never seen any religious discussion get any farther than that. I don't see a point in having the discussion in the first place if there isn't even so much as the intent to meet those conditions. It all comes down to people trying to disprove each other's beliefs.

Here is where I disagree, and I don't disagree with your statements about there being a misunderstanding, rather I disagree with the idea that it's a symmetrical misunderstanding. 99% of the time it's the atheists, agnostics, polytheists, and academics who are being reasonable and open-minded. (1). They use logic as their basic principle (2). They are the only ones who have the desire for mutual understanding (3). Conversely, the religious crazies are the ones who push their agenda without any regard for reason and understanding. They aren't trying to learn; they are trying to preach and convert.

Yes, you're right that there is some serious incivility going on in the world of religious debate, but the incivility is one-sided. Who silenced Galileo? Who forced Alan Turing to kill himself? Who slaughtered thousands of South Americans when they entered the New World? It was the religious crazies, and they continue their hatred and destruction. Have you ever seen such nonsense propagated by atheists or agnostics? No.

I think the basic principle should be logic. Use whatever you would use in a court of law. If it's illogical, admit it's illogical and accept that it has no place in a debate or discussion.

Just don't let these religious extremists get away with making religious criticism a taboo subject. Also, don't let them get away with their misrepresentations. When someone says to me, "You're telling God he doesn't exist," I consider that a misrepresentation since I've never directed any statement or question to God. The religious crazies know this. They're just being arrogant and dishonest by sneaking in that "God" thing.

I know some religious people who are good people and who can use logic. I have nothing against them; they can believe what they want, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. But the moment someone says something like, "I invaded Iraq because God told me to do it," or someone says, "God hates gays," I'd say that it is time well spent to point out the irrationality of such beliefs. Even if they themselves aren't listening, maybe someone else is. And if you can save one person from the hatred and destruction of fundamentalist religion, I say that having a discussion is worth it.

jaehwan

Jul 14th, 2007, 01:04 AM

By the way, Scowl, I saw this guy speak:

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/03/13/catholic_scientist_has_faith_in_both_god_and_evolu tion/

He's a brilliant guy, even though I think he has an unsubstantiated belief in God. But the key is that he doesn't force his belief on me, nor does he make misrepresentations by saying things like, "You're telling God he doesn't exist." He relies on logic and just says, "It hasn't been proven one way or another, though it is still possible that someday it will be proven." He argues with logic, and he doesn't attempt to deceive people with shady and false arguments. I can't disprove the existence of God, so we just agree to disagree.

So it is possible for atheists and theists to be respectful of one another. But in order to do so, they must accept logic as a common language.

Scowl

Jul 14th, 2007, 03:39 AM

Here is where I disagree, and I don't disagree with your statements about there being a misunderstanding, rather I disagree with the idea that it's a symmetrical misunderstanding. 99% of the time it's the atheists, agnostics, polytheists, and academics who are being reasonable and open-minded. (1). They use logic as their basic principle (2). They are the only ones who have the desire for mutual understanding (3). Conversely, the religious crazies are the ones who push their agenda without any regard for reason and understanding. They aren't trying to learn; they are trying to preach and convert.

Okay, I get what you're saying, and I generally agree. I don't know if I'd say 99%, but still up there.

But the moment someone says something like, "I invaded Iraq because God told me to do it," or someone says, "God hates gays," I'd say that it is time well spent to point out the irrationality of such beliefs.

Can't argue with you there.

Vetrean

Jul 14th, 2007, 10:31 AM

It isn't even the least bit symmetrical. You need to learn to distinguish between doctrine and logic. One is based on "faith," the other is based on thinking.

Common sense dictates that if I claim that the world is created by a guy who died for our sins, or if I claim that the world is created by a celestial teapot or a flying spaghetti monster, or if I claim that Santa Claus flies around the world every December 24th, or if I claim any other doctrine, then the burden is on me to prove it. If I can't prove it, then in order to have a respectful discussion with someone who doesn't share my beliefs, then I must argue solely on what can be established. You can believe whatever you want, and you have the right to congregate based on that belief, but when it comes to talking to others and having a civil conversation, the burden of proof is on you.

You see this dynamic whenever fundies attack gay people. They say, "God says your lifestyle is a sin." When you ask them to prove it, they pull out a Bible verse. My response is that the burden of proof is on the fundies. First, they need to prove that God exists. Then they need to prove that the Bible is his word. Then they need to prove that he says it's a sin to be gay. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the non-believer.

If you've ever seen a court hearing, a prosecutor can't just go into court and say, "You did it" without proof. He can't say, "I believe that you did it" and expect a jury to just agree. He needs to prove it, and if he doesn't try to prove it, he can be held in contempt. The defense, on the other hand, is under no such obligation.

The point didn't have anything to do with 'proving' something or not. Oh well, Scowl answered already, so I'm not going to expend the effort.

Atheists are not saying anything to God, and your example is a typical construction that Christian apologists like to use. It's not nitpicking; it's setting a correct foundation for discussion. If you said, "The tooth fairy doesn't exist," you would think it ridiculous if I said that you were telling her that she didn't exist. You'd find it equally ridiculous if I said you were being arrogant against the tooth fairy and that you were insulting her and hurting her feelings. You'd say, "She doesn't exist! Get over it!"

And maybe you'd be wrong. You can't prove that she doesn't exist, and I can't prove that she does.

But, as I mentioned above, the burden of proof is on the believer. If I can't prove her existence, then it is unreasonable for me to invoke her when talking to you or talking to someone who believes that Santa Claus, not the tooth fairy, is actually the one replacing teeth with money.

True enough.

lycheng

Jul 14th, 2007, 02:07 PM

The way I see it, if there's going to be any meaningful communication between beliefs, three conditions must first be met:

1) It must be reasonable, open-minded people engaging in the dialogue in a civil manner.

2) There must be basic, fundamental principles and assertions agreed upon that they can then build on.

3) There must exist the mutual desire to come to some sort of joint understanding.

I think my posts in this thread so far have been consistent with these conditions. Feel free to let me know if I've deviated from them.

Scowl

Jul 14th, 2007, 02:49 PM

I think my posts in this thread so far have been consistent with these conditions. Feel free to let me know if I've deviated from them.

I think you were more willing to meet those conditions than bluejives was, but it takes two to tango.

It is not an extremist position to ask people, who may be anti-Christian in some way, to be intellectually honest with themselves and re-examine their own motives, beliefs, attitudes, and thinking patterns. That was the purpose of the OP.

Actually, I see his point with this. I think his reasoning is faulty, but at the same time there are atheists who could be as dogmatic as any Christian fundamentalist. People of all beliefs (including Atheists) can and do fall into the same trap of not questioning or examining their own beliefs.

The problem, bluejives, is that you can't effectively argue your point to non-believers if you keep coming at them from the "God's word is law" angle.

lycheng

Jul 14th, 2007, 04:43 PM

Continuing on religious pluralism, relativism and tolerance…
That is the objective of interfaith dialogue. But all too often, religious relatvism, which sometimes is really "political correctness for religion", tries to impose a forced neutrality
and stifle meaningful and critical discussions under the guise of "tolerance". By the way,
tolerance means allowing due respect and decorum despite differences in ideology. By definition,
we "tolerate" BECAUSE we are different, not because we are the same and in agreement.
I agree that tolerance means due respect and decorum despite differences. And certainly I would agree one can use “tolerance” to stifle a meaningful debate.

However, in my experience, those who preach religious tolerance are not doing that. Case and point, when the Senate invited a Hindu priest to conduct their morning prayer (http://www.thefighting44s.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5179), who are the ones being disrespectful? It’s the Christian Fundamentalist.

As a non-believer all my life, I never acted in a disrespectful way during a Government sponsored prayer. Growing up in an American public school system, I had to recite “One Nation under God” as part of the Pledge of Allegiance. I had to participate in a group Christian prayer as a member of my High School basketball team. Finally, I had to bow my head down during the invocation of my High School Graduation (a Christian prayer lead by a Catholic priest).

My point is that non-believers and non-Christians in the United States have to do this on a regular bases despite their personal objections to either government sponsored prayer or the religious ideology being voiced on their behalf.

When Atheists challenge the God part in “One Nation under God”, are they going too far? Probably not because “God” was not in the original pledge. It was inserted during the 1950’s McCarthy Era (see this CNN link (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/index.html)), so a good case can be made that it’s not necessary. Would I actively support this cause? Probably not. I think a non-believer can just skip the words “under God” when they say the pledge. That’s what I did.

Prayer in school, on the other hand, is quite a different matter. I would support the fight against a school conducting prayers during sporting events, graduation ceremonies and during official classroom periods. We’ve all heard of the cases where a public school administrator forbids a student from participating in voluntary prayer in school during their free time. That's an overreaction from a school bureaucrat.

I'm actually sympathetic to the Christians who view that as being discriminatory against Christians. If I were a school principal, I would allow students to pray in their free time (like lunch period). But if I saw groups of Christians or Muslims, or other religious groups actively proselytizing other students during free periods, I would put a stop to it. That’s because a public school, while in session, should not be view as an arena for religious recruits. I would allow individuals to pray if they’re doing it in a free period.

Bible Study groups are a little trickier because they are an organized group, and as such carry an amount of persuasive weight (especially if a teacher is involved). I think I might allow it if they were not actively trying to convert others. But if I hear a complaint about proselytization, then I will take actions to disband the group. Of course I would do the same for Koran Study or Buddhist study, or Scientology study groups. But given that Christians are a majority in this country, chances are, it’ll probably be a Bible Study group that violates the no proselytization rule.

Given the reasons I stated above, am I discriminating against Christians if I banned a Bible Study group because of proselytization?

Relativism is the individual's response to pluralism. Relativism says: given "multiple paths to spiritual enlightenment", I pick path A or B, or some wierd combo of A,B,C, and D, or some new
form of spirituality X, or even "none of the above". The word relativism itself begs the question
"relative to what?" That in turn implies a reference point. The reference point is Self
(my background, upbringing, past history, experience, etc). This understanding of religious
relativism is in agreement with the authors of the OP, who spend far more time thinking about
such matters in a professional capacity than you and I.

Well, relativism in that context doesn’t necessarily mean relative to “The Self”. It can be relative to other religions. All that means is I see all religions having the same ultimate goal – spiritual enlightenment, whatever that means. There’s no begging the question.

Now you’d probably object to the “whatever that means” part because you are 100% certain your God is behind it all, and anyone who believes in anything else believes in an inferior ideology.

This is crucial difference between you and me. You are always coming from the point of view that God (Christian God really) is the ultimate source of all things. Anyone who says stuff that implies an interpretive approach to “God”, is pursuing an inferior belief. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s the gist I get when I read your writing.

If you agree with what I said about your beliefs, then unfortunately, you are a Christian Fundamentalist. You are someone who takes any challenges to the Christian faith as an attack on “God itself”, as if you are speaking on behalf of God.

Some of the other mainstream Christians can chime in here, but I don’t think it’s a good thing for Christians to think of challenges to the religion as challenges to “God”. Sometimes challenges are good for the religion. In fact, I would argue that Christianity, like other religions, must adapt to the ever changing world. Even the Catholic Church realized that when they said there is no conflict between Evolution and Genesis.
(http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM)
Relativism says
"what works for you works for you, and what works for me works for me".
A hippie might say that. Someone seeking to have precise definitions of terminology certainly wouldn’t.

You are being intellectually dishonest by using this as a definition of relativism. You are poisoning of the well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well) by characterizing relativism as a concept that only leads to a completely non-judgmental way of life.

Hence, this statement

"As a religious pluralist, I don’t think all paths to enlightenment are equal."

is self-contradictory.

And this statement,

"I leave open to the individual to find their own way of describing what they mean by spiritual
enlightenment or awareness." makes you a religious relativist, not a pluralist.

Furthermore, the two statements above collide with one another.
As I’ve explained in my first post, there is nothing inherently in the concept of pluralism to force someone to abandon their reasoning and judgment, treating all spiritual paths as being fit for consumption.

Just because there are multiple paths to spirituality doesn’t mean all paths should be followed. You should have known that from my example of drug induced spirituality in my first post.

Here’s another example. I don’t think Fundamentalist Islam is an authentic path to spirituality. I’m talking, of course, about the Islamic extremists who are willing to kill innocent lives in order to promote their way of life. Surely, religious pluralists don’t all end up supporting THAT ideology. Far from it, it’s the “I know Gods word, and his word is the Law”, types who support violence to fight a spiritual war.