A swift refutation of a particular argument for religious pluralism

[anonymous person]

One argument against Christianity as being the one true religion is one based on an appeal to religious pluralism. One specific argument for religious pluralism, hereafter referred to as "SAP" and goes like this:

Christianity is but one of several different worldviews. Since there are worldviews that are dissimilar to Christianity, Christianity is false.

A swift refutation of this particular argument would be to show that if it's crucial premise is applied to the pluralist view itself, it is false. Let VDTRP represent "View dissimilar to religious pluralism".

1. If a VDTRP exists, then religious pluralism is false.
2. A VDTRP exists
3. Therefore, religious pluralism is false

The proponent of SAP affirms one because he thinks that the existence of a dissimilar view of x makes x false. So the crucial premise is 2. In support of premise 2, all one need to do is point to the existence of at least one view that is dissimilar to Religious Pluralism. Religious Exclusivism is one such view. Thus the proponent of SAP, in attempting to argue for Religious pluralism, actually shows it to be false.

No one here holds to this SAP, however, I am sure.

 

[quatona]

One argument against Christianity as being the one true religion is one based on an appeal to religious pluralism. One specific argument for religious pluralism, hereafter referred to as "SAP" and goes like this:

Christianity is but one of several different worldviews. Since there are worldviews that are dissimilar to Christianity, Christianity is false.


No one here holds to this SAP, however, I am sure.

Which makes me wonder why you bring it up at all.
Out of interest: Could you tell us where you have come across this argument?

 

[anonymous person]

Which makes me wonder why you bring it up at all.
Out of interest: Could you tell us where you have come across this argument?

I brought it up in the event that someone here thinks it is a good argument can see it and realize it is not.

I have come across no one here who has argued this explicitly, although some have given me reasons to think that they think it is a good argument. These reasons come to me in the form of posts they make in response to certain points I have made.

They say things like, "yea well Joseph Smith said thus and so", or "Muslims say the same thing" etc. etc.

IOW, they make appeals to dissimilar views as if to say, "what you are saying is not true because other people think differently".

At least that is how they come across.

 

[quatona]

I brought it up in the event that someone here thinks it is a good argument can see it and realize it is not.

I have come across no one here who has argued this explicitly, although some have given me reasons to think that they think it is a good argument. These reasons come to me in the form of posts they make in response to certain points I have made.

They say things like, "yea well Joseph Smith said thus and so", or "Muslims say the same thing" etc. etc.

IOW, they make appeals to dissimilar views as if to say, "what you are saying is not true because other people think differently".

At least that is how they come across.

In short: A strawman.

 

[anonymous person]

In short: A strawman.

We will see.

 

[bhsmte]

I brought it up in the event that someone here thinks it is a good argument can see it and realize it is not.

I have come across no one here who has argued this explicitly, although some have given me reasons to think that they think it is a good argument. These reasons come to me in the form of posts they make in response to certain points I have made.

They say things like, "yea well Joseph Smith said thus and so", or "Muslims say the same thing" etc. etc.

IOW, they make appeals to dissimilar views as if to say, "what you are saying is not true because other people think differently".

At least that is how they come across.

At the end of the day, all arguments stand on their own merits, no matter how many different arguments there are.

 

[bhsmte]

We will see.

You appeared to pretty much confirm and admit it is a strawman.

You must be bored and need to invent.

 

[anonymous person]

At the end of the day, all arguments stand on their own merits, no matter how many different arguments there are.

Just remember that you have to make a distinction between views and arguments and understand that what you just said about arguments applies to views, specifically worldviews as well.

For example, If I say "Jesus is God incarnate", that statement is not rendered false just because atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews say otherwise.

 

[anonymous person]

You appeared to pretty much confirm and admit it is a strawman.

You must be bored and need to invent.

Oh I hope it is a strawman. I hope no one here will argue otherwise.

I have been surprised here though. There may very well be some here who think the SAP is a good argument for religious pluralism and can benefit by understanding why it is not.

 

[bhsmte]

Just remember that you have to make a distinction between views and arguments and understand that what you just said about arguments applies to views, specifically worldviews as well.

One's world view is personal to them. When one attempts to use arguments, they are trying to show someone else they are correct, which is a different ballgame.

If one holds a certain world view and makes no attempt to use arguments that their world view is correct and or someone else's is wrong, I could care less to challenge their worldview.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh I hope it is a strawman. I hope no one here will argue otherwise.

I have been surprised here though. There may very well be some here who think the SAP is a good argument for religious pluralism and can benefit by understanding why it is not.

Your reaching. But then again, you have a habit of doing so.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

One argument against Christianity as being the one true religion is one based on an appeal to religious pluralism. One specific argument for religious pluralism, hereafter referred to as "SAP" and goes like this:

Christianity is but one of several different worldviews. Since there are worldviews that are dissimilar to Christianity, Christianity is false.

That's not a good argument for Christianity being false. The religious pluralist would probably not be inclined to make that sort of argument anyway.

A swift refutation of this particular argument would be to show that if it's crucial premise is applied to the pluralist view itself, it is false. Let VDTRP represent "View dissimilar to religious pluralism".

1. If a VDTRP exists, then religious pluralism is false.
2. A VDTRP exists
3. Therefore, religious pluralism is false

I don't think this is a very good argument. The religious pluralists aren't arguing that religious exclusivism doesn't exist, they are arguing that the religious exclusivists are incorrect. So one can easily reject premise 1 as non sequitar: if a view dissimilar to religious pluralism exists then it is simply incompatible to the truth claims made by religious pluralism.

 

[anonymous person]

One's world view is personal to them. When one attempts to use arguments, they are trying to show someone else they are correct, which is a different ballgame.

I agree. I just don't see how this is relevant to the point I am making.

If one holds a certain world view and makes no attempt to use arguments that their world view is correct and or someone else's is wrong, I could care less to challenge their worldview.

You challenge Christians, regardless of whether or not they make an attempt to argue that their views are correct though. You challenge them because you think they are wrong and that you are right.

 

[anonymous person]

That's not a good argument for Christianity being false. The religious pluralist would probably not be inclined to make that sort of argument anyway.



I don't think this is a very good argument. The religious pluralists aren't arguing that religious exclusivism doesn't exist, they are arguing that the religious exclusivists are incorrect. So one can easily reject premise 1 as non sequitar: if a view dissimilar to religious pluralism exists then it is simply incompatible to the truth claims made by religious pluralism.

I agree.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree. I just don't see how this is relevant to the point I am making.



You challenge Christians, regardless of whether or not they make an attempt to argue that their views are correct though. You challenge them because you think they are wrong and that you are right.

Nope, you are wrong.

I only challenge someone's faith position, when they do any of the following:

-claim their faith makes them morally superior to me
-claim I am being led by evil or really believe in a God, but deny him
-claim to have objective verifiable evidence to support their faith belief
-they misrepresent well evidenced reality, to protect their faith belief

If a person of faith refrains from the above, I will never question or challenge their faith belief. Most of my closest friends are Christian and they can refrain from the above. But, on this site, it appears many of the Christians can not refrain from engaging in the above.

 

[anonymous person]

Nope, you are wrong.

I only challenge someone's faith position, when they do any of the following:

-claim their faith makes them morally superior to me
-claim I am being led by evil or really believe in a God, but deny him
-claim to have objective verifiable evidence to support their faith belief
-they misrepresent well evidenced reality, to protect their faith belief

If a person of faith refrains from the above, I will never question or challenge their faith belief. Most of my closest friends are Christian and they can refrain from the above. But, on this site, it appears many of the Christians can not refrain from engaging in the above.

So you would not challenge me if I told you Jesus was God incarnate?

In the above, I did not:

-claim my faith makes me morally superior to you
-claim you are being led by evil or really believe in a God, but deny him
-claim to have objective verifiable evidence to support my faith belief
-misrepresent well evidenced reality, to protect my faith belief

 

[bhsmte]

So you would not challenge me if I told you Jesus was God incarnate?

In the above, I did not:

-claim my faith makes me morally superior to you
-claim you are being led by evil or really believe in a God, but deny him
-claim to have objective verifiable evidence to support my faith belief
-misrepresent well evidenced reality, to protect my faith belief

Depends what you mean by challenge.

Let me clarify further for you, so there is no confusion.

If someone makes the statement, Jesus was God incarnate, I may ask them, how do you know this? I don't think this simple question is challenging, it is just asking how they know.

If the answer is; I believe this based on faith alone and they don't claim to have objective evidence that applies to others that they rely on, I will not challenge. If they claim, they have objective evidence and others who disagree with them are simply not seeing the light, then the challenge begins.

 

[anonymous person]

Depends what you mean by challenge.

Ok.

Let me clarify further for you, so there is no confusion.

If someone makes the statement, Jesus was God incarnate, I may ask them, how do you know this? I don't think this simple question is challenging, it is just asking how they know.

Awww come on now.....

You're going to challenge the person. You think they are wrong and you are going to challenge them. You may be as polite as Mary Poppins, but you think they are wrong. Their view about Jesus conflicts with yours. You think you are right and that they are wrong and you correctly recognize that both you and that person cannot both be right.

There is no fence-riding when it comes to Jesus.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok.



Awww come on now.....

You're going to challenge the person. You think they are wrong and you are going to challenge them. You may be as polite as Mary Poppins, but you think they are wrong. Their view about Jesus conflicts with yours. You think you are right and that they are wrong and you correctly recognize that both you and that person cannot both be right.

There is no fence-riding when it comes to Jesus.

How can I think someone is wrong, if I don't know how they reach the conclusion they did?

If someone tells me they believe on faith alone and nothing else, they are admitting they don't have objective verifiable evidence and I leave them alone.

The issue becomes, it appears many on this site, can not admit they believe on faith alone and they must convince themselves they are using logic, reason and or they have evidence to support their belief. When they go down this road and present arguments that their faith belief is correct, they are opening the door to be challenged.

Just as, the prosecutor in a court of law, presents arguments that a person is guilty and the defense, gets to challenge these arguments.

 

[timewerx]

If a person of faith refrains from the above, I will never question or challenge their faith belief. Most of my closest friends are Christian and they can refrain from the above. But, on this site, it appears many of the Christians can not refrain from engaging in the above.

It's a fact of face-to-face acquaintances. People are more likely to hold back and avoid sensitive discussions up front. It's a culture thing.

For all you know, one of them is here on CF and had debated with you at some point.


On topic, not a big fan of debates. Debates assume both sides are on equal grounds even with non-religious matters. On absolute terms, that is not true. One idea will always be better than the other in absolute terms so debate won't solve problems....Statistical analysis would!