A swift refutation of a particular argument for religious pluralism

[KCfromNC]

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.

I'd be curious to know who makes this specific argument. Edit - looks like I wasn't the only one. And it looks like the answer is "no one who actually exists outside the OP's imagination".

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

You seem to be making a habbit of first presenting a silly argument that nobody is making, only to then "refute" it and then pretending that you have scored some kind of point.

It's quite sad.

Perhaps for the next thread, you should first ask people their actual opinions / arguments, and then go from there.

 

[anonymous person]

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

By knowing what is right.

If someone walks up to you and tells you the earth rests on a turtle's shell, you can know they are wrong without hearing them out on why they think that. You know they are wrong because you know the earth does not rest on a turtle's shell.

 

[anonymous person]

You seem to be making a habbit of first presenting a silly argument that nobody is making, only to then "refute" it and then pretending that you have scored some kind of point.

It's quite sad.

Perhaps for the next thread, you should first ask people their actual opinions / arguments, and then go from there.

I'm just glad you don't think it is a good argument. I am glad you agree with me on that.

 

[durangodawood]

.....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.....

My goodness.
I'm a religious pluralist, and that would be an awful argument to attempt on behalf of religious pluralism.

 

[anonymous person]

My goodness.
I'm a religious pluralist, and that would be an awful argument to attempt on behalf of religious pluralism.

Seems we agree on it being an awful argument.

 

[Ana the Ist]

By knowing what is right.

If someone walks up to you and tells you the earth rests on a turtle's shell, you can know they are wrong without hearing them out on why they think that. You know they are wrong because you know the earth does not rest on a turtle's shell.

How do you know the earth doesn't rest on a turtle's shell?

Is it evidence?

 

[Davian]

How do you know the earth doesn't rest on a turtle's shell?

Is it evidence?

No, it is a matter of faith.

 

[anonymous person]

How do you know the earth doesn't rest on a turtle's shell?

Is it evidence?

If you want to call my knowledge of what a turtle is "evidence", then sure.

 

[quatona]

I'm just glad you don't think it is a good argument. I am glad you agree with me on that.

Of course, it´s a terrible argument - which is no surprise, seeing that you are its author.

 

[Gene2memE]

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.

Right here is where the flaw in the argument emerges. The simple true/false dichotomy is invalid in this argument. Under religious pluralism, Christianity is not "false" or "true". Rather it is equally valid to other views.

As religions are belief systems, which are necessarily subjective and personal, and involve the supernatural, which is beyond falsification, it is generally impossible to determine whether a religion is "true" or "false"*. Thus, the approach in post-Enlightenment secular societies has been to treat all religious claims as equal. At least, that should be the general idea.

*Unless specific claims about affects on the physical world are made, religious claims are, generally speaking, impossible to verify or falsify.

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

Premise 1 is faulty. You've neither established or demonstrated it.

The proponent of SAP affirms one because he thinks that the existence of a dissimilar view of x makes x false.

No, they don't. Again, your argument breaks down here because that's not what secularists or religious pluralists think or argue. The existence of contradictory religious beliefs does not imply one or all beliefs are necessarily true, and it does not imply that one or all beliefs are necessarily false. (As an aside, the competing and often mutually exclusive claims of religions means that it is impossible for them to all be right, but they could ALL be wrong).

The existence of views dissimilar to religious pluralism has no bearing at all on the validity of religious pluralism as a view, policy or attitude. It is fully accepting of the fact that certain believers hold other believers worldviews to be false. Pluralism makes no judgement on the validity of beliefs, it just treats all claims that can't be verified as equally unverifiable.

 

[bhsmte]

By knowing what is right.

If someone walks up to you and tells you the earth rests on a turtle's shell, you can know they are wrong without hearing them out on why they think that. You know they are wrong because you know the earth does not rest on a turtle's shell.

It depends what people use to show they know what is right.

 

[Gene2memE]

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.

Neither is it rendered true because you and other Christians believe it. For the claim to be valid, it has to be demonstrated as such.

 

[durangodawood]

...To me, it's like debating various cooking styles without defining what food is.

I never hear cooking discussions where any party, nor the audience, feels the need to define "food".

 

[DogmaHunter]

I never hear cooking discussions where any party, nor the audience, feels the need to define "food".

That's because "food" already is a well defined word.

 

[Dave-W]

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 is NOT "religious pluralism." It is exclusiveism in the sense that ALL are wrong. If you can exclude Christianity because another system is different, then that system itself can be dismissed also since it is different than Christianity.

Continue the process and eventually you have no systems left; i.e., all religions are false.

 

[Dave-W]

I never hear cooking discussions where any party, nor the audience, feels the need to define "food".

There are theological discussions where that question comes up.

 

[durangodawood]

There are theological discussions where that question comes up.

Then perhaps the cooking-discussion comparison doesnt really work.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

Yup. I think religious pluralists are not prone to absolutism, anyways. "All religions must be true [in every way]" is not one of the usually heard arguments for religious pluralism.

When one studies comparative religions, it is harder to believe in religious exclusivist claims. Because one will find the same themes repeated in many religions.



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.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dave-W]

Then perhaps the cooking-discussion comparison doesnt really work.

Agreed.