Pluralism and Indifferentism

Mary is commonly shown with a serpent at her foot. Here Guan Yin baptizes a dragon at hers.

William Lane Craig, of whom I am a huge fan, says that the biggest challenge for Christian apologetics today is “pluralism.” By this he means what Catholics call “indifferentism”: that all religions are equally true.

Craig rejects the claim that all religions are equally valid, reasonably enough, because they directly contradict each other. Islam, for example, condemns the Christian idea of the Trinity as idolatry, shirk: God is one. Buddhism denies the existence of a soul. Hinduism worships many gods. They cannot, therefore, all be true.

Objection, as Thomas Aquinas would say: I argue that if God exists, he is not going to allow us to be led astray. He is the good shepherd. He is not going to reveal truth only to the Europeans, or only to the Jews, and abandon everyone else. He is not going to penalize you for being born in Africa instead of Israel. The fundamental truth must be available to all.

Therefore, all major religions must at least be fundamentally true.

There is evidence that God has done this, too. How else explain the uncanny similarities among religions, on matters not subject to rational deduction. Why does every culture have a story of the Great Flood? Why does every culture have dragons, although they do not exist in nature? Why the uncanny similiarity in iconography between Mary in the West and Guan Yin in the East? How were the Romans or the Greeks able to identify their own gods worshipped far afield, wherever they conquered?

If they disagree on some point, as of course they do, there are several possibilities. One may be wrong, and the other right; but this point is not essential to salvation. Personally, I would put the Muslim or Protestant prohibition on images in this category: it is wrong, but as images are only a means to an end, not using them is not critical. I would hold the Buddhist or Hindu practice of vegetarianism morally superior to Christian or Muslim dietary rules; but not enough so to lose anyone’s salvation.

Or one may misunderstand what the other is really saying. Recently, Catholic and Lutheran authorities seem to have come to this conclusion regarding their different terminology over the Eucharist. I think this accounts as well for the Muslim disagreement with the Christian Trinity. The Muslims think this means three gods; yet Christians would find that interpretation appalling. Muslims speak of ninety-nine names of God; Jews speak of ten emanations of God. Some are personified. Is that so different? Are they, too, polytheists?

The ten emanations of God.

So too with Christian criticism of Hinduism as polytheistic. Only a terminological difference, I believe. Hinduism believes in one “Godhead,” Brahman, which appears in many manifestations, “gods.”

Or they may be responding to different issues. For example, the obvious differences between Buddhism and the other major world religions can be accounted for by understanding Buddhism’s prime concern as psychological, rhetorical, rather than philosophical. Christian or Buddhist morality seems more personal, Jewish or Muslim more social, in its concerns.

When there is an apparent conflict among the major faiths, it is useful, and perhaps our duty, to look more carefully, and decide why. But even this cannot be of critical importance; God would not make salvation available only to the smarter among us. Sincere adherence to any major faith—I’m inclined to say any faith, so long as it is sincere―ought to be sufficient.

Craig points out a second common argument for asserting that all religions are equal: that God by his nature is beyond human understanding. Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that any religion has the real scoop: “God is not Christian.” Christianity cannot contain him. In effect, the argument is that all religions are false.

This is the argument by which I conclude that Christianity is superior. God IS Christian.

The argument is perfectly sound, so far as it goes, and is asserted by Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism almost as presented here: God is beyond human understanding.

But the fact that we cannot comprehend God is not decisive. It is not up to us. A loving and all-powerful God would want to reveal himself to us. Whether the image he offers us is comprehensive is not relevant: it is his chosen image, and he, being God, knows best. But, being God, we must also assume that he is capable of making it comprehensive, too.

Not wanting to abandon us, wanting us to know him, this is what he must have done. Sometime, somewhere.

Christianity asserts that he has expressed himself to us as Jesus Christ.

Buddhism, Judaism, or Islam offer no rival claimants. Hinduism does, with its concept of the avatar: Krishna, Rama, and others.

But Krishna or Rama seem literary characters, existing only in the mind’s eye, unrelated to any period in history or known historical persons or events.

Jesus, on the other hand, has clear historical warrant for his physical existence. As Craig has argued, there is even good historical warrant for his resurrection. This makes him, at least, a more comprehensive and definitive manifestation of the divine.

Therefore, while all religions are true, there seems solid reasons to believe Christianity is the gold standard.

World distribution of the two largest faiths, Christianity (red) and Islam (green).

Now go back to our premise, that God would not withhold the truth from anyone. It follows that he should also historically favour the spread of the faith that offered the most efficient path to salvation. Other faiths may endure because they are more efficient for those raised to a specific culture or set of circumstances. Islam, for example, might be better tailored to Arab sensibilities. Its allowance of polygamy makes practical sense in a desert environment. Conversely, it is virtually impossible to follow the fasting rules for Iftar above the Arctic Circle.

Accordingly, the simple fact that Christianity is the largest and most widely distributed of world faiths seems further evidence that it is right—and not merely by the ad populum illusion. On this one issue, God has reason to be pulling the levers behind the scenes.

I am not at all keen on missionary activity directed at followers of some other major faith. Doing so seems a waste of effort. Adherents of other faiths must be fine so long as they are sincerely following it. Jesus himself says so: if a Jew cannot be a good Jew, he cannot be a good Christian. The proper mission field is among those who have fallen away, or who are despondent, or have no faith.