“I am the way and the truth and the life,” Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) On the face of it this statement seems to challenge the limits of arrogance and intolerance. How could anyone claim that He is the only path to God? A claim such as this one lies in direct violation of the supreme standard of the post-modern age in which we live. That standard is unquestioning tolerance. Yet the Christian faith uncompromisingly makes that claim and others like it. It claims that the truth it expresses is immutable and constant. But the world views such claims as intolerant and narrow minded. The post-modern world, concerned as it is with being fair and inclusive, suggests that the sincerity of the belief should be the test for the validity of an opinion. Reality is relative to the way one perceives it. To such a mindset, it becomes impossible to even admit the possibility of discovering objective truth. So, all opinions are granted the same weight, regardless of whether or not they reflect reality. And if there is no objective truth, then any opinion that claims to speak authoritatively and exclusively on any subject, is by definition not true. In the twisted logic its adherents employ, the only position that is inherently untrue is the one that states a truth that is universal; one that is objective and exclusive.[i]
It is the contention of the post-modernists that the truth claims of one religion to possess exclusive truth, Christianity in particular, is not only intolerant but also impractical. It is impossible, they argue, that there is any neutral way to evaluate these claims. Instead, they hold that no one religious tradition possesses the entire truth. Therefore, all religions are valid. All possess the same value in our search for the divine. They propose there is one divine reality that the various traditions approach in different ways.
And they posit, that underpinning them all, lies the same foundation of similar moral values. They cite as proof the transformational effects that any and all religions seem to produce in their adherents.[ii] To them this is evidence that, in the words of Ramakrishna, the Hindu holy man, “Many faiths are but different paths leading to the one reality, God.”[iii] In this worldview then, what really matters is sincerity. Any belief can take you where you are going. All of them are valid means to ‘salvation,’ which is ultimately universal anyways. Of course, this line of thought diminishes the richness of and the differences between the various traditions. It reduces them to mere morality systems. The golden rule is found in so many of the world’s religions. Doesn’t that prove that on some basic level they are all the same?[iv] This is the view of religious pluralism we get when all truth is relative.
But even the watering down of the various religious beliefs does not solve the problem. The tenets of the competing worldviews reflect not just a difference in approach but an outright contradiction of the other positions. These differences extend right down to the most basic level, that of defining the nature of God.
To the monotheistic religions, i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, God is an all-powerful personal creator. Each of these believes in the one-ness of God. On the other hand, many Hindus hold to the idea of an impersonal reality which is found in all things. Others believe in as many as 330 million less than all-powerful gods. Holders of the New Age philosophies find god in themselves. (So do some Hindus.) It is an insoluble problem. The contradictions are very real. By the very fact that each claims exclusive knowledge, all religions are bound to contradict each other.
In light of these conflicting claims all of them cannot be true. Logically, they could all be false. The science of Logic tells us, only one of them can be true. What is true then is that all of them cannot have the same value unless all of them are false. With all respect to Ramakrishna, it is impossible that they are all “leading to the one reality, God.” One cannot include, in a system that says all religions are of equal value, religions that claim their own exclusivity. Logic doesn’t allow it.
Perhaps it would be helpful to look at some of the characteristics of truth itself. Among its attributes, philosophers tell us that truth cannot violate the basic laws of logic. It is absolute and it is unchanging. By definition, it is exclusive. Two contradictory propositions cannot be true. Jesus cannot both be God, (the Christian position), and not be God, (the position of Islam). There is no way to reconcile these two claims. They are mutually exclusive. As one Christian philosopher put it, “Everything cannot be true. If everything is true, then nothing is false.”[v] [vi]
Let us review for a moment again some of the competing concepts of God. Christians and Muslims believe in one all-powerful God. However, Christians hold that God manifests himself in three persons. Muslims see this as metaphysical sleight of hand and claim Christians are closet polytheists. Hindus think Muslims and Christians are about 300 million gods short of a full deck. Buddhists don’t concern themselves with God at all. Those who hold to New Age beliefs think they are probably god. They just haven’t realized it yet. Or maybe it’s the universe that is their extended body. How are these competing concepts to be reconciled? According to the laws of logic they can’t all be right.
Now the sacred writings of these religious works are not subjective. They are intended to reflect the realities of the mysteries of existence. We must take them at their word in so far as they are making claims about truth, claims about the nature of existence. If this language is dealing with issues of reality it is subject to the tests of logic, to contradiction. Take the Shema for instance. “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4) Either the ‘Lord is one’ – or He is not. This statement does not leave room for the subjective opinion of the reader. Religious language expresses propositional truth. It is true or false. And if it contradicts the claims of a polytheistic Hindu, by definition, at least one of them is wrong.[vii]
Evolving from polytheistic Dravidian and Aryan traditions, Hinduism must be viewed not as a religion but a religious system of related beliefs. There is no creedal consistency. Hindus may worship many gods or no god at all. There are no universal moral demands. Hinduism views man as a part of an impersonal divine force. All material reality is illusion. Therefore, sin and even life itself is illusion. They believe in reincarnation. The uncreated eternal soul may be reborn thousands of times, living each time a life of suffering, until the ultimate release and union with the infinite. In each new life they pay for the karma of their previous life. They seek release from this cycle of constant reincarnation through either works, knowledge or ritualistic religious devotion. Hindus believe in many divine incarnations, especially of the god Vishnu. Some could even accept Jesus as one of these godly manifestations. But they often hold that God can be found through many paths, so they object to the notion of Christ as the unique Son of God.[viii]
Buddhism is somewhat related to the Hindu religion. It began as a reaction to what its founder, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), saw as errors in Hinduism. He rejected the validity of the Hindu scriptures and the notion of the individual soul. He emphasized ethics over ritual and believed that the material world was real. Buddhists reject the concept of God. Like the Hindus they hold to the cycle of reincarnation. And all life is suffering. Nirvana is achieved when letting go of all desires. It is only through self-effort that this ‘salvation’ can be achieved.[ix]
The New Age has much in common with both the religions of the east as well as well as ancient Babylonian rituals, nature worship and the occult. Often the earth itself is viewed as a goddess. Probably the common underlying principal of the New Age Movement is that all truth is relative. Divinity is found within the self. One taps in to a personal divine potential by achieving a higher consciousness. As such there is no sin. Man is neither good nor bad, and all religions are essentially the same. This is of course a natural conclusion of any world-view that denies the absolute nature of truth.[x]
[i] John MacArthur Why One Way?, W Publishing Group, Pg 7- 9
[ii] Keith E Johnson, Do All Paths Lead to the Same Destination, Leaderu.com
[iii] Fritz Ridenour, So What’s the Difference, Regal Books, Ventura, 2001, pg 94
[iv] Gannon Murphy, Do All Paths Lead to God?, Geocities, monitored 2000
[v] Ravi Zacharias, ON Truth, Gospel.com, monitored 2000
[vi] Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations, Bethany House, 2001, pg 296-297
[vii] Keith E Johnson, Do All Paths Lead to the Same Destination, Leaderu.com
[viii] Fritz Ridenour, So What’s the Difference, Regal Books, Ventura, 2001, pg 89-96
[ix] Fritz Ridenour, So What’s the Difference, Regal Books, Ventura, 2001, pg 104-106
[x] Fritz Ridenour, So What’s the Difference, Regal Books, Ventura, 2001, pg 151-160
Leave a Reply