In C.E. 203, the Roman government arrested a young woman, a Christian, named Perpetua. The problem was not so much that she worshipped Yeshua. Her crime was that she worshipped only Yeshua. She refused to worship any other gods. As a result, the Romans found she was guilty of treason and sentenced to death. This dangerous idea, which Christ alone provides the way to God, non-Christians call Christian particularism, and it is as scandalous today as it was 2,000 years ago. Religious pluralism, on the other hand, is the view that all the world’s religions are equally valid, and Christ is just one of many ways. Some religious pluralists say all the world’s religions teach the same thing, thus they are all true. However, this is clearly mistaken. The major religions often contradict each other.
For example, compare Islam and Buddhism. Muslims believe there is a personal God, who created the world, and man is sinful and will spend eternity in heaven or hell, and faith and performing good works attain salvation. However, Buddhists deny all of this. They believe that ultimate reality is not a person; God did not created the universe; man is not sinful; man is not an enduring self. In addition, the goal of life is not salvation; it is annihilation. Because the two worldviews contradict each other, they cannot both be true. In fact, every major world religion contradicts every other one, thus they cannot possibly all be true. Therefore, other religious pluralists will say all the world’s religions are false. They are equally valid, but equally false cultural expressions of humanity’s search for truth. Nevertheless, why think that this is true? Why could not one particular religion be true? When we examine the arguments for religious pluralism, we find that some of them are textbook examples of logical fallacies. For example, “Anyone who believes that Christianity is true and every other view is wrong is arrogant. Therefore, Christianity is false.” This is a logical fallacy called argument ad hominem; trying to show someone’s view is false by attacking his personal character. This is a logical fallacy because the truth of a view is independent of the character of the person who holds it.
For example, if an arrogant person discovered the cure for cancer, the fact that he is egotistical would not mean his claim was false. We would not refuse treatment just because he was arrogant. Moreover, this objection is a double-edged sword. For the pluralist also believes that his view is true and that everyone else is wrong. Therefore, if we were arrogant for holding to a view, which many others disagree with, then the pluralist himself would be guilty of arrogance.
Here is another pluralist argument: “Religions are culturally relative. If we had been born in Pakistan, we would likely be a Muslim. However, if we were been born in Ireland, we would probably be a Catholic. Because religious beliefs are culturally relative, they are not objectively true.” This is an example of the genetic fallacy, trying to invalidate a view by showing how a person came to hold the view. This is a fallacy because the truth of a view is independent of how a person came to believe it.
For example, if we had been born in ancient Greece, we would have believed that the sun goes around the earth. Does that make our current belief that the earth goes around the sun false or unjustified? No. Furthermore, this objection is also a double-edged sword, for if the religious pluralist had been born in Pakistan or Ireland, he would likely have been a religious particularist, thus his belief in religious pluralism is just the result of his being born in contemporary Western society, and therefore, is not objectively true. When we remove these fallacious objections, then we reveal a more serious objection to Christian particularism: t
PRIMARY SOURCES: Dr. William Lane Craig Videos on Jesus Christ