Apologetics: Ethical Objections & Ethical Relativism

Introduction: Ethical Relativism Explained

Before we investigate objections on specific Christian ethical positions, I thought it would be best to assess the broader picture of Christianity’s place within ethical discussions. In this lecture, I’ll explain ethical relativism. Then, I’ll look at two ways in which ethical relativism manifests in a pair of objections against the Christian faith. Next, I’ll articulate responses to those objections. Thereafter, I’ll turn back to relativism with an aim of undermining it. To close, I’ll consider what’s often behind ethical relativism and highlight that philosophy’s weaknesses as well.

This lecture will resonate with our earlier treatment of religious pluralism and multiculturalism. Like that previous topic’s framework, there are many ethical systems from which to choose: utilitarianism, hedonism, virtue ethics, feminist ethics, and deontological ethics to name a few. The existence of differing belief systems is once again construed as definitive evidence that none are wholly true.

One of the more pervasive views today isn’t an ethical system per se but an interpretation of all ethical systems. Ethical relativism insists upon the profound limitation of ethics to tell us what is right and wrong. Normally when we speak of relativism, it’s the ethical version to which people are referring.

As you may know, ethical relativists think that the truth can’t be known about ethical matters. In that, they agree with skeptics who also claim we can’t know ethical truth. Unlike skeptics, though, the ethical relativist says this is the case because there is no objective truth to be known. There’s no position on a single issue, let alone a host of issues, that can be shared and accepted among all people because terms like “right” and “wrong” don’t capture any real features of the world.

To put it bluntly, “right” and “wrong” are just words within this view. Ethical principles are conventions like etiquette and traffic laws. We make up these sets of rules to help us decide how to act, to help us keep the peace, or to promote a privileged group’s interests. The rest of us abide by them because doing so helps us get along in society, garner others’ praise, and feel good about ourselves. Even if some of us naively think we abide by ethical rules or norms for grander reasons, there’s nothing grander going on than self-approbation.

Before we get too far, understand that ethical relativism doesn’t come in only one flavor. There are a few varieties of ethical relativists. One variety holds ethical truths are relative to groups of people. Multiculturalism often works hand in glove with group-centered ethical relativism. This position would say, for instance, that female circumcision is ethical or good for the groups that practice it in Africa or the Middle East even though many Western groups abhor it. We’re not able to condemn such practices without being ethnocentric, which is to say, without being biased in favor of the beliefs and practices of our group.  

Another variety of ethical relativism holds that ethical truths are relative to the individual. It may be the individual’s judgment, what he or she can or can’t accept, or what most promotes his or her interests. Regardless of why a person believes it’s good to behave in a certain way, another person cannot fairly pass legitimate judgment on another’s beliefs. This variety would be more consistent with American individualism, which says every single person should be free to pursue his or her self-determined goals without societal interference.

Listen closely in conversation about ethics to determine in which camp the person with whom you’re speaking resides. The same person may shift among these views. As an example: if he’s criticizing Christianity, it may be from the perspective of an enlightened American citizen. If he’s defending himself, it may be from the perspective of an unaffiliated individual. That sort of wavering is a vulnerability we can exploit because equivocation, where a person uses the same word to mean different things at different stages of argumentation, is a logical fallacy. We have something to say to both individual- and group-centered relativism, but anyone committed to clear thinking can see that it can’t be both.

Importantly, note once again that fair, impartial criteria with which to assess the various opposing ethical judgments do not exist. Any proposed criteria would be skewed either to the person offering the criteria or to that person’s group. As we’ll see, it’s hard to avoid using criteria, though.

One of the practical side effects of ethical relativism is it frees you up to decide whether you’ll obey the man-made rules or whether you’ll work around them. Ethical commandments or prohibitions are weaker within a relative paradigm. They aren’t compulsory. Other people may say sexual promiscuity is bad, but that doesn’t bind you when you’re a relativist in love. Others may say drug use is bad, but that doesn’t bind you when you’re a relativist who needs to chill out.

Another practical outcome of ethical relativism is that it stifles attempts at ethical correction. Within this schema, we shouldn’t criticize others because each of us is trying to do the best we can and figure out our life’s course for ourselves. Even if we aren’t relativists, we are influenced by its dominance. Many  of us hesitate to speak the truth in situations for fear of offending someone with such an intrusion. Our hesitation often comes from doubt about the truth’s existence, at least in that situation.

Correction is impossible for another reason as well. In lieu of justifying truth on rational or objective grounds, that is, grounds that are accessible by our fellow human beings, our culture frequently turns to sincerity. This is generally accepted to be the case for ethical and religious belief. Sincerity is, by definition, private. It’s internal. There’s no arguing with it because feelings aren’t rationally responsive. If a person sincerely believes something, many are tempted to conclude it is somehow true for him or her. The validation of belief becomes subjective. It’s a product of how strongly a person feels or how convinced he or she is.

Finally, notice that none of the above entails that ethical relativists have no ethical beliefs. As we’ll see, many ethical relativists still say they believe that certain actions are right and certain actions are wrong. What’s different is what’s at stake in disagreements. The tenor of those assertions and the ensuing discussions is nearer to disputes about matters of taste than debates about matters of truth. Since the highest achievement of ethics for a relativist is to become an established opinion accepted by others, there’s no need to cede any ground. Anyone else’s opinion is just as valuable as your own. The rub is that no opinions can be prescriptive, meaning rules can be forced on other groups or individuals. This is, however, another point of vulnerability that many of our responses will attempt to prod.

To summarize, ethical relativism alters the way ethical principles or propositions are held. For ethical relativists, even when you think some action is right, this isn’t actually the case. Instead of supposing a foundation beyond human opinion, ethics has flimsier grounding. The truth is often conceived as what works for us or what we sincerely believe to be true. It follows that whatever counts for the lesser caliber of truth varies between people, either groups or individuals.

Cultural Barriers

Our culture, under the influence of postmodernism, has grown increasingly dubious about mind-independent truth. A recent poll found that approximately 80% of Generation X assume there is no absolute truth, as compared with approximately 70% of Americans at large who assume there is no absolute truth. Ethics, as we have seen, is no exception.

Whether or not the respondents to those surveys understand the ramifications of that statement, it’s clear the Bible cannot accommodate that stance. Christians would say this incommensurability is a problem for nonChristians in that they are wrong or confused about the nature of reality. It’s also a problem for us, though, in that we are judged by many nonChristians to be wrong or confused about the nature of reality, too.

Since Christians believe in objective moral truths, they will disagree with ethical relativists. The Bible contains many behavioral rules that are intended to apply to everyone, everywhere. For example, Christ has told everyone, everywhere to be perfect like their heavenly father is perfect. There is never a situation in which any of us have permission or license to be imperfect. Even though we act, as a matter of fact, imperfectly, we know this is our own wrongdoing.

As you could imagine, relativism, ethical or otherwise, is an impediment to apologetics insofar as people think that Christianity’s ethical claims don’t have the truth value and explanatory power we hold that they do. If you say that some action is wrong--especially a popular action, an ethical relativist would object, “Maybe to you, but not to me.” If you respond that the Bible backs up your view, you’re likely to hear, “Maybe you think it backs up your view, but it really doesn’t.”

One conclusion from conversations with ethical relativists we can draw is that Christianity has lost its accumulated cache of authority. It may come as a shock because, in the realms of church and congregation, the faith is held in such esteem. We like to believe that we not only stand on but that we own the moral high ground in our culture. Listen to ethical discussions around you, however, and you’ll hear that others stringently believe that Christians are ethically bankrupt.

After the revision of the concept of truth, from capital “T” truth that’s true for everyone at all times to little “t” truth that’s true for certain people at certain times, Christianity’s ethical claims are construed as intolerant. From a relativist’s perspective, Christian claims deny others’ opinions. Instead, Christian claims are understood as opinions that claim to be more than opinions.

Another objection levels the higher charge that Christian ethical claims are immoral and wrong. Part of this indictment is that those claims don’t allow people to choose for themselves what is right and wrong. We’ll address both claims of Christian intolerance and Christian immorality next.

***

Rather than simply disagree with ethical relativists, or worse still wag our fingers and scold them, we need to debate. We need to show others not only why we believe in ethical truth but why they should believe so, too. We need to uncover the implications of ethical relativism as well as elaborate upon common misrepresentations of Christian commitments.

In addition, it bears reminding that while speaking to the subtlety and nuance of interpreting Scripture and applying it to our lives, we can never question its absolute truth.

Christian Intolerance

As we saw last week and as we’ll see once again on when we discuss hell at length, people commonly take offense at Christianity’s perceived intolerance. While the heart of these issues is the same, their bodies are different and worthy of examination.

One common ethical objection to Christianity we’ll cover has to do with the way Christians believe. Namely, they take their ethics too far. They cross the line that respects others’ freedom to act and live as they see fit.

Because it’s inflexible about what is right and wrong, some would say Christianity doesn’t respect people’s ability to find their own happiness. To them, Christianity is an elaborate political movement that aims to force it’s outdated morality on the country as a whole. Christians’ understanding of God and attempt to impose his will on others is seen as encroaching upon everyone’s personal freedom, which is acutely threatening to Americans.

Oftentimes, objectors point to Christian fervor as a necessary consequence of their commitment to objective morality. They’ll point to self-righteous, overzealous, bigoted, antagonizing and all the other volleys they claim Christians launch in the culture wars. They’ll talk about the picket signs and protest marches, the threats of damnation, and televangelists perverse excitement with natural disasters befalling sinful places. To them, we hate the sinners and the sins. We’re not merely close-minded, we’re aggressively close-minded.

What these critics want is to be left alone and allowed to do as they wish. They would say, “I don’t believe those rules,” or “My people don’t believe those rules.” Either way, they’d say “Stop trying to force me to obey them.”

Christian Misdeeds

Another common ethical objection to Christianity focuses on what Christians have done, often in the name of God. Some people make ethical objections to Christianity on the grounds that it has supported, initiated, or turned a blind eye to immoral actions large and small

You’ve heard the charges against the church historically, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the various bloody wars during the 16th and 17th centuries, endorsement of the slave trade, and vast institutional betrayals like the never ending sex abuse scandal. Today, we are constantly accused of smaller scale atrocities for which we need to answer. There is no shortage of accounts of nominal Christians and church leaders involved in wicked schemes of adultery or theft. There have been plenty of violent attacks upon abortion clinics or their staff. There have been cruel disruptions of funeral services.

Atheists and agnostics point to these examples of wrong-doing. In so doing, they’re basically claiming, “There is no truth to what their religion espouses. Look at the sorts of people it generates.”

Responses to Christian Intolerance

Using the proper approach is an indirect way to address ethical objections generally. On a most basic level, guard the way you present yourself to others. Don’t challenge someone unless you’re motivated by a concern for his or her ultimate healing. Again, don’t approach someone with an air of superiority. We all struggle with various temptations and idolatries. We should never forget we, too, are sinners. Taking a humble posture is one way to disarm charges of intolerance before they’re leveled.

We also need to be mindful of the way the conversation is framed. While it’s easier to be against something than to be for something, defining yourself negatively, in opposition to something, doesn’t inspire people to act or to change. We don’t want to be on the side of intolerance and allow another group to be on the side of tolerance. We need to make a finer distinction. We aren’t advocating for intolerance as opposed to tolerance. We’re advocating for intolerance of evil in the world and in ourselves and embrace, not just tolerance, of good.

As a brief but important aside, I’d like to once again plug the golden rule. Reciprocity can spare us much wasted effort in misunderstanding. Christians groan at every news story that presents us as unintelligent, hypocritical, or self-serving. Let’s not repeat this mistake and assume that every nonChristian is a liberal, an evolutionist, or a feminist. Not all atheists or agnostics are across the board moral relativists or would self-identify as such. Many simply struggle with confidence in their judgments because they’ve been told definitive positions are arrogant. We can show people by grace by asking them what they believe to be the right course of action rather than assume they believe a false one.

Adding content to that form of humility, we can begin with agreement. Tim Keller is quick to point out in response to these observations a scriptural observation of his own. The Bible reserves plenty of criticism for religion. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus takes the religious to task, not the irreligious. He condemned pharisaical pride. So, we should feel emboldened to echo his rebukes.

There’s more on which we can agree. One of the reasons why ethical relativism is so popular is because it capitalizes on a salient feature of ethical reasoning. Specifically, that ethics can be hard. There are situations in which interests collide, principles conflict, intentions confuse, and outcomes confound. On that point, the ethical relativist and the Christian of like mind. They both recognize the imperfections and limitations of human understanding. Let’s not be afraid to explain how even when we as Christians take right and wrong to be black and white, that we still live in gray. Be open with how hard it has been for you to apply God’s instruction to your life. It does not follow that we should throw up our hands and just go with our gut or, even worse, conclude that our best judgments are faulty.

After humbling yourself, point out what’s wrong with taking tolerance as a universal virtue like it commonly is. Many of our peers speak as though tolerance were always good. But this cannot be the case. To say a person is wrong is construed as disrespectful. It hurts people to tell them they’re wrong. But first of all, what if a person is incorrect? So long as you don’t gloat about it, wouldn’t we say that correction is a good thing? We don’t let children believe that Abraham Lincoln was the first president. Surely if it’s proper to correct people about trivial matters, it’s proper to correct people about weighty matters like courses of action.

Second of all, is harm--such as the harm involved with disagreeing with someone else--always wrong? If so, then we have a universal principle for which ethical relativism cannot account. If not, how can you draw the line? On what ground can a person who takes tolerance to be a virtue stand up against an intolerant person? It’s one of the inherent inconsistencies with global tolerance. It can’t be sustained indefinitely. At bottom, tolerance can often become a refusal to value what is true and good.

Point out how we would not be benefitted by God allowing us to determine what’s good for us. We need God’s law as well as his love. We believe in divine ethical imperatives, commandments that God has passed down to us through his word and has written on our hearts. These cannot change. They are always righteous. Don’t mince words. God does constrain our personal freedom. This is merciful on his part, not controlling. It the only sort of correction that could truly repair us.

No response would be complete without an attempt to help sophisticate others’ understanding of Christianity. Firstly, Christian doctrine does not claim that all ethical topics are straightforward. The Apostle Paul himself writes of the complications when he says, leaving aside whether or not it’s lawful to eat certain foods, that you should not do what makes others stumble even if it doesn’t make yourself stumble. (Romans 14:13-23)

Moreover, Christianity is not just a set of rules to follow. This is not the place to elaborate upon the Gospel. Suffice it to say our faith is relational, not transactional.

Responses to Christian Misdeeds

First of all, ask why those actions are wrong. Hard questions like that have a way of softening positions because, as we’ve agreed, ethics isn’t easy. You’re likely to reveal the other’s version of relativism or you’ll hear something that sounds like or a foundational belief. The latter, of course, would no longer be relative. Afterall, accusing Christians of wrongdoing is self-defeating for an ethical relativist insofar as it assumes there is something truly evil about dominating others, for instance. We’ll discuss what we can say to secular foundations towards the end of class.

Also, ask why the person focuses on Christian misdeeds in the first place. Ask them if there is any group in history who couldn’t be criticized. Even the groups relativists associate with would be vulnerable to reproach. Here, as elsewhere, the merits of the ethical system aren’t born out in its representatives’ actions. They’re borne out in the inherent correctness.

Provide a counterweight to the critic’s slanted portrayal. Point out the many of the positives accomplishments Christian groups and individuals have made for civilization. To scratch the surface: Hospitals have Christian roots. Public education and universities were a product of early Christian living. Christians were greatly influential and some of the first to push for abolition of the slave trade. More recently, the Civil Rights movement was largely made possible by Christian faith. It had a part to play in ending apartheid and repressive Soviet communism. The Christian legacy has many examples of people who gave their lives in service of others, an act empowered by a fervent belief in a God who already died to save the world.

But we shouldn’t whitewash our past or even our present. We need to humble ourselves before others, nonbelievers included, and admit we are flawed like our other Christian brothers and sisters. Christian misbehavior, be it on a personal level like rudeness or on a historical level like some churches’ support of slavery, cannot be soft pedaled. We need to be clear in condemning wrong actions, regardless of who commits them or whether or not they self-identify as Christian. The fact is Christian misdeeds are done in contravention of Christian principles.

A good time to introduce the notion of sin and inject the Gospel into these discussion may be precisely when speaking of such failures. The Bible regularly illustrates the faithfuls’ disobedience, so we need not shy away from calling it out. We can explain our enduring need for God’s mercy and how, of all people, Christians shouldn’t be self-righteous. We all need a savior.

***

When it’s time to take on ethical relativism itself, we have a few tacts we can take. I’ll cover two tonight. One is to crack the ribs, as it were, and the other is to get to the heart of the matter. We’ll cover both in turn.

Making a Case: Why Relativism Is Wrong

Insisting that truth is subjectively determined is muddled thinking. Clarify the terms. There’s a difference between what is believed and what is true. It may be true that you believe something, but it isn’t necessarily true that what you believe is true. Christians can agree with relativists on that point. We know our fallibility continues past our baptisms or conversions. Just because we can err doesn’t mean that we always do, however. Furthermore, just because we disagree doesn’t entail there’s no truth about the subject of our disagreement. The relativist’s leap to these conclusions needs explaining.

Frances Howard-Snyder in his essay “Christianity and Ethics” concisely recounts the many difficulties for ethical relativism. First, either version of ethical relativism is incompatible with moral progress because it can’t regard changes as progressing in any direction, positive or negative. Improvements requires standards and any proposed standard would be relative.

This fact has unsavory ramifications for many ethical relativists. Who’s to say taking biodiversity into account when modifying seeds and planting crops is any nearer to the good than ignoring natural stability and doing whatever is cheapest? To give another example, there’s no objective way to compare our society to antebellum America, for instance. We can’t claim improved race relations for ourselves. All that can be said on the relativist’s account is that our beliefs have changed, not that they’ve changed for the better or the worse. This also undermines accusations that past Christian misdeeds like the Crusades we’re actually wrong. (That’s not the point were arguing, of course, but it does refute that objection.)

Also, ethical relativism that’s group-oriented becomes incoherent when an individual is a member of multiple groups. If a woman is Christian and living in Saudi Arabia, it becomes impossible to say whether it is or is not moral for her to drive a car, for instance. As a Christian, she should be free to operate a vehicle but as a citizen in a heavily paternalistic nation, she should be a passenger. Nothing is right for her.

Relativism Relativizes Itself

Most damning, ethical relativists almost always stop claiming there is no ethical truth at some point. If you ask probing questions, there will likely come a time when the ethical relativist concedes that certain immoral actions are always immoral, regardless of the person or society. I’ll have more to say on that later, but for now: to break through the purported equivalence of all truth claims, pose an extreme example of evil behavior and see if the other person would tolerate it as permissible. If not, inquire after why this particular action shouldn’t be allowed.

Most stringent relativists will have trouble allowing naziism to be a good thing, even for early 20th Century Germans. This shows that there must be some criteria with which to exclude certain viewpoints as unacceptable. As CS Lewis points out in Mere Christianity, as soon as we think one system is better than another, we stop thinking of ethics as a human convention. Whenever we say one is better than the other, we appeal to a standard that is independent of ourselves. That is, essentially, the Christian ethical position.

It would be fair to ask how he or she explains the conviction that animals shouldn’t be abused, for example. You may need to challenge them to explain how his or her beliefs aren’t undone by one of the varieties of ethical relativism. Whether or not a response is forthcoming, it could be powerful to offer the theistic account.

The relativist’s inconsistency is telling. People want to believe in ethical truth, even if they vocally deny its existence. An amoral universe is frightening, even if we suppress that fear. The deep sense of ethical conviction is bridge to atheists. This is where God’s truth has a hold of them. Use that. Explain how God has made his moral character known by imbuing our universe with real goodness.

Good Implies God

At this point, it may be appropriate to pivot towards an argument for the existence of God. As you may recall, I mentioned that one of the chief arguments that God exists is an argument that accounts for the objective truth about ethics. Now that we’re talking about ethics again, it’s fitting we revisit that argument.

Tim Keller presented an argument for the existence of God from a moral sense in his book The Reason for God. He observed that we have an unavoidable belief in moral values and obligation. Even if we don’t always see eye to eye on what those values are and how we are obligated in a specific situation, we are convicted by our consciences. Even purported ethical relativists draw lines that cannot be crossed regardless of how a person feels about them.

The difficulty for the strictly secular theories of morality is they cannot state on what inalienable rights, for instance, depend. It’s inconceivable how something like human dignity could be from nature, given nature’s tendency towards violence and predation where the strong lord over the weak. It’s impossible to claim justification from majority rule because nothing prevents a majority from acting oppressively and compromising the minority’s human rights. The binding law can’t come from the individual because, as we mentioned, individuals disagree.  Short of saying that nature is unnatural when it comes to morality, a strictly secular account cannot answer why we ought to respect others’ rights. Considering moral obligation the Biblical account of things, once again, makes better sense of things than the secular account.

Thinking Through Relativism: Relative Evil

As we just saw, we should bore down in these conversations, drilling past ethical objections, past relativism, and down into the bedrock metaphysical commitments. Doing so, we’ll eventually confront naturalism. That’s where our fundamental conflict lies with ethical relativists because that tends to be the philosophy to which secularism appeals.

To understand the heart of relativism, I’d like consider how ethical relativism is at the root of another objection to Christianity. When the problem of evil arises, many atheists and agnostics have a simplistic view of suffering. They are likely to assume all pain is evil. The influence of relativism is behind this assumption. When we deny the reality of objective moral values, we only have recourse to subjective ones. We look to our preferences and feelings to discern between good and evil. Everything that hurts us, that is unpleasant, is taken to be evil and, contrarily, everything that helps us, that is pleasant, is taken to be good.

This brings us to another reason for the popularity of ethical relativism, besides the fact that ethics can be difficult, is that values like good and evil, right and wrong, aren’t empirical. We can’t directly see or measure values. That makes it hard to be quantified, which means it makes it hard for science to study them. The cultural authority the Christianity has lost has in many ways been claimed by science. This is the true core of our disagreements.

We can use moral intuitions to undermine science’s sway. Just because science can’t label it and explain a phenomenon doesn’t imply it doesn’t exist. Unexpectedly, the very fact that there is real, genuine evil in the world that isn’t a matter of personal opinion, a fact that remains evil even if the people perpetrating it invincibly believe it is good, this fact is a problem for a naturalistic worldview that science assumes. It is a fact that we are appalled by ethical evils, but how else could that fact be adequately explained without recourse to theism? What is the physical status of that evil, how can it be measured and quantified? If it’s more than just a feeling of displeasure, more than a preference, more than a delusion, or an accident, if it is the truth, which seems to be what people are saying when they’re appalled by brutality, where is it to be found outside the brains of the affronted and indignant? How could it be anything more or even other than a natural outcome of natural processes?

The conclusion to draw from this is that naturalism is normatively challenged, by which I mean, cannot adequately obligate its adherents to do good or avoid evil regardless of their peculiar subjective, personal states. If the right thing to do is costly or if the wrong thing could be easily done secretly, naturalistic accounts don’t have sufficient obligating power to require us to be ethical. As I mentioned at the outset, some would selfishly prefer this to be the case and to take advantage of this leeway. Those of us who long for justice to be done can’t abide by that outcome. Either justice is real and will be done or it’s optional and it won’t.

This is another component of the moral argument for the existence of God in that it’s exemplary of people’s intuitive knowledge of the moral law. The problem of evil exhibits that knowledge in that it assumes things on earth are not the way they ought to be. Whatever falls short of a standard presupposes a standard of goodness. The Christian has recourse to the supernatural. Our standard of goodness is derived from God's. (Matt 5:48) What does the naturalist have?

(return to Apologetics page)

Apologetics: Multiculturalism & Religious Pluralism

Introduction: Our Multicultural Society

We’re talking about religious pluralism, among other things, which believes religious truths are relative to the cultures they were born and developed in. In the future we’ll discuss ethical relativism, which believes ethical truths are relative to either the groups or individuals that hold them.

You may be surprised to learn the umbrella of issues and objections we’re covering has come up in my life as frequently as the problem of evil. Many people who weren’t raised in a religious environment--a growing demographic--are kept from committing to a religion because of issues like these. I could speak to that hesitation myself. Others who were raised in an insular Christian home or community may go off to college, for instance, and be challenged by the alternatives presented in their classrooms, dormitories, and textbooks. They may leave the faith after being introduced to how other groups view Christianity.

Multiculturalism and religious pluralism are especially relevant topics for us to investigate in this course because it’s so definitive our own national culture. From the very beginning, we’ve taken our freedoms seriously. Our iconic Statue of Liberty welcomed millions of immigrants who came here seeking the economic and social opportunities our freedoms afford. Religion is no different. Remember the pilgrims came here in part to escape England’s state-sanctioned Anglicanism. America is one of the most religiously diverse nations ever because our laws protect the right to practice one’s faith even if that faith is obscure or unpopular.

Religious and ethnic diversity are facts of everyday life. We are constantly reminded of our diversity through exposure to other faiths in our cities and in news stories. In most metropolitan areas, you’ll pass by a synagog, temple, mosque, cathedral, and church by driving a few miles down any major thoroughfare. In each of those places, people believe as they wish about the nature of the universe, who we are, and who God is if he is at all. Even more varied than our religious backgrounds is our ethnic backgrounds.  Chinatown, Germantown, the French Quarter, Little Havana: America is full of nationalities. Where I work, one of our tasks is to assemble programs for naturalization ceremonies. The number of countries represented is astounding.

More than just allowing people to worship who or what they will, we believe that freedom is right and proper. We are taught from an early age that everyone should be able to believe as they wish. People in our country have always taken and continue to take advantage of that legal framework.

Our cultural makeup feeds some of the philosophical trends we discussed way back in the first week. Our multicultural country is conducive to postmodernism insofar as it provides us with so many worldview options. The trouble is fairly, impartially evaluating them. As you may recall, postmodernism has a low view of reason and is skeptical about the truth. Accordingly, it doesn’t think we have access to the truth because of our innate and incultured biases. Postmodernism denies any fair or objective foundations for knowledge because all of us have conflicted interests. We want to believe what promotes the groups we’re a part of. It follows, there are no fair or objective standards by which we in our conservative midwestern American culture can judge other cultures. We’re doomed to be ethnocentric.

Types of Pluralism

Now that we’ve introduced our topic of pluralism, let’s clarify our terms. There is a type of pluralism that is descriptive, meaning it says something about a state of affairs,  and a type that is normative, meaning it recommends or endorses a state of affairs.

Descriptive pluralism is an observation about a given society. It says, “There are many different views here,” or in our case, “There are many different religions and denominations here.” The remarks I made earlier were in the vein of descriptive pluralism. A society that is descriptively pluralistic is usually going to be multicultural as well, since a significant factor in religious affiliation is ethnic background.

Normative pluralism is a value judgment about a given sort of belief. It says, “There should be many different beliefs here,” or in our case, “There should be many different religions and denominations here because we can’t know religious truth.” My previous remarks about postmodernism relate to normative pluralism.

The former, descriptive kind of pluralism isn’t unique to our time. In fact, it has accurately described the societies within which Christianity has grown and been active since Jesus’ life. The early church was founded inside a culture that was descriptively pluralistic. Jews, godfearing gentiles, pagans, and atheistic religious adherents like stoics all mingled within Roman society.

As history shows, descriptive pluralism poses no threat to religious belief generally and to Christianity specifically. Christians need not be wary of or withdrawn from such a manifold society. God delights in diversity, so we shouldn’t be critical of cultural heterogeneity. In fact, there’s danger in too much similarity. The descendants of Noah were divided into tribes once they became so numerous and powerful they thought they could rival God. Although God clearly wanted them to remain peacefully associated, he did not want them to be homogenized lest they try to challenge him again. Since then, people have grouped together and become distinct from one another, to develop their own unique affinities in response to their own unique surroundings.

The latter, normative kind of pluralism takes aim at particular religion in favor of general, amorphous religiosity. Because there are so many options, people are tempted for reasons of politeness and for the sake of peace, to de-emphasize differences between religions. In this way, multiculturalism inspires religious pluralism. Religious pluralism is a belief in the approximate truth of all religions, or at least in their truthful equality.

As I said, the tendency to disbelieve objective truth claims has become prevalent in what we have referred to as our post-Christian society. That’s not to say ours is the first or only society to encourage a diversity of beliefs but that such encouragement is particularly distinctive of our contemporary context. Often, whenever the topic of religion arises in conversation, especially among people under 40, we’ll encounter a position that says divergent beliefs ought to be respected because they could each be possibly true. What this proposition entails, and what we need to clarify, is that each set of beliefs is actually false in the way the believers understands them. Religious people do not understand themselves to be committed to a system of half-truths, so the attempt to accommodate diversity implies an unspoken rejection. The current virtues of tolerance and respect for others’ views tends to promote abandoning unique, core beliefs and pushes people towards a common religious denominator.

We’re not going to quibble with any claims about descriptive pluralism. That’s a matter that can be satisfactorily settled by demographics and census data. Instead, our focus will be on multiculturalism and normative pluralism and how those schools of thought can be problematic for adherents of a singular faith like ours.

Here, as elsewhere, it’s important to know your audience  Postmodernism can support irreligion, where you think all religious people are wrong, and religious pluralism, where you think all religious people are right in a few basic, common areas. So, a person can object to Christianity because of other religions on secular grounds or on religious grounds. He or she may think all religions are true in some sense or all religions are false. Both are hindrances to Christian belief, so we’ll address.

The Objections:

Arrogance

One of the central tenants of normative pluralists is that religions teach the same truths using different metaphors and stories. One of the most significant figures in the pluralist school of thought is John Hick. According to him and other normative pluralists, religions are culturally conditioned responses to Ultimate Reality. We never know or experience Ultimate Reality as it is because it’s beyond our comprehension. None of our categories of thought apply to Ultimate Reality either by approximation or analogy. That’s why we have the variety of religions that we do: because no one can figure out the whole truth about Ultimate Reality. All we can be certain of is that, by looking at various religious teachings, we’re supposed to move from self-centeredness to Ultimate-centeredness and we are to affirm the goodness of Ultimate Reality.

Most world religion courses in academia emphasize the overlap and suggest that all religions are similar in their other-orientedness. They talk of making basic divisions between the sacred and profane. They use words like the “Ultimate” to describe that which is to be most revered, whether that’s God, the world, or the human spirit. The normative pluralist account takes this as evidence of a deeper, shared truth beneath the superficial, parochial beliefs of a given religion.

The existence of world religions is taken as undercutting Christian claims such as Jesus being the way to salvation. A common pluralistic objection to Christianity is that, in the face of various alternative religions, Christianity’s exclusive truth claims are problematic. As soon as Christianity disagrees with or delegitimizes others religious claims, we are faced with a choice. Either the other religious claims are false as the Christian asserts or the Christian is false for making such an assertion as the pluralist asserts.

You can see how this philosophy would take as arrogant any group who would say that their religion is the correct one. They’d prefer to say to each his own. We have someone in our family who has said that everyone takes a different path to the same end. This is a popular notion in eastern religions that has been grafted into our own culture. Regardless of its origins, though, we need to address it.

Ignorance

We can take the spirit of this objection a step further and question not just the proposition that there’s one true faith but state that no faith can be taken seriously at all, not even an amalgam of faiths. This most completely postmodern stance doesn’t take Christianity’s truth claims seriously. It doesn’t want to even ask the question whether or not religions are true.

Let me give you an example from my life. A friend of mine once liked a meme--a picture with text overtop--on Facebook that showed Willy Wonka with a grin. It said, something to the effect that, “Of all the religions in the world, the one you believe in is the true one.” along the top and along the bottom it said, “How convenient!” Hundreds of thousands of people liked that photo. Snarky though it is, that’s how many people view us. They think we must be ignorant.

Everyone believes such different propositions. How can we be serious?

Intolerance

Multiculturalism clashes with Christian doctrine in another concern. Judgment and hell frequently enter into discussions of world religions. We’ll reflect on hell at length in our last class, but we should make a relevant remark here. Some would say Christians are intolerant in that they condemn others. God is called unjust because some people who could be consigned to hell for failing to confess Jesus as their Lord and Savior never had a chance to hear or understand the Gospel. People at the very least wonder why God doesn’t do more to save everyone.

To take another instance from my life, a nonChristian couple we’re friends with asked what happens to people who have never heard the Gospel. Behind this question was a concern that Christianity asserts all pygmies and aborigines are going to hell because they haven’t confessed the name of Christ. They are rightfully aghast at that merciless proposition. That’s how many people view us. They think we must be intolerant.

Responses to Arrogance:

All Religions Are Not Basically The Same

Simply put, the claims of religion pluralism are false. All religions are not basically the same. There are radical, incommensurable differences between religions. God is or isn’t. We have souls or we don’t. Salvation is obliteration or reconciliation. It can’t be both.

Christianity is unique among the world’s religions in a number of aspects. We believe in a God who became incarnate. We believe in a God who is three persons in one substance. We believe in a God who suffers. None of these are true of other religions, yet they are distinctive of Christianity in such a way that if you cut them out, you have no Christianity left over.

I want to offer a word of caution lest we become too antagonistic in the face of these objections. There’s nothing controversial or heretical with saying we agree with Jews and Muslims about God being the creator of the universe or with Buddhists that compassion is a chief ethical commitment. We have nothing to fear in ecumenism or interfaith dialogues. If, as we stressed in the early weeks of our course, we can stand with atheists and agnostics on certain positions, we certainly can stand with Mormons or BaHa’is on other positions.

It’s a false dichotomy to assert that either you accept religious pluralism or your embrace an arbitrary claim the Christian experiences of God alone are reliable and that others are wholly illusory. Christian can allow non-Christians are capable of experiencing God truly but partially while disagreeing with specific claims. We have an account of just that fact. O’Connor explains in his essay, “Religious Pluralism,” “sin has not entirely eradicated this natural affinity for our Maker, nor has God abandoned those who have yet to come to understand his purposes and offer of redemption through Christ.” This will be important to our later response to condemnation as well.

To go even further, Christians should be the most constructive constituents within a multicultural society. As Tim Keller points out in his treatment of this topic, Christianity has the power to fight against the divisiveness that is so common with religion. God encourages us to cooperate with all kinds of unbelievers because they still bear the image of God. Christ was kind and gracious to all people groups, especially the ethnically oppressed and marginalized. Following his lead, Christians have been able to establish a track record of peaceful coexistence which is in stark contrast to, for example, the polytheistic Greco-Roman culture.

To summarize, religions essentially differ. Any interpretation to the contrary is a fabrication and does not do justice to individual religions. While we should not be so bold as to say all religions besides Christianity are erroneous in all that they hold, we are committed to disagreement when Scripture teaches something else.

Why Can’t There Be Just One Way?

We may ask, in response to normative pluralism, what is it about religious belief that is uniquely unknowable? Timothy O’Connor, in his essay “Religious Pluralism,” points out that we aren’t pluralists when it comes to scientific truths. We have no qualms about divergent hypotheses. We’re comfortable assuming that one of them comes closest to the way reality is. Would we be comfortable saying there’s no best course of action for our city because a democrat and a republican disagree, for instance, on mandatory minimum sentences?

The answer, I’d offer, has to do with our reticence to commit ourselves to metaphysical claims because, while we think lowly of reason, we think lower still of faith. But, faith is unavoidable. We need to illuminate that inevitability.

As Tim Keller points out in his book The Reason for God, it’s not a self-evident universal truth that everyone with working rational faculties accepts. Keller states it succinctly when he relays that, should a person go to the Middle East and assert, “There can’t be just one true religion, nearly everyone would say, “Why not?”.

Moreover, claiming there can’t be just one true religion is itself an act of faith. No one can prove that claim empirically. There is no way to falsify it, no way to scrutinize the material world for conclusive evidence in support of that hypothesis.

The pluralist makes difficulties for him or herself. If we agree with the religious pluralist that no religion has access to the full truth, how can we claim the the religious pluralist view has that same access? Are we using the same faculties to form that view? Why are they more attuned to reality when they deny particular religions?

Christians can be more intellectually honest and have more integrity than those who would presume to be neutral. Unlike the pluralist who says he or she can stand apart and judge religions, we can say as Christians that we’re in the same mire as everyone else. We have the same impulses and inclinations to overcome. But we grab hold of the truth God has revealed to us in his word and through his Holy Spirit.

Responses to Ignorance:

Exclusivity Does Not Entail Falsity

Just because other, relevantly informed and reasonable people of good will disagree with Christianity doesn’t provide a compelling basis for rejecting Christianity’s exclusive truth claims. It certainly doesn’t make us irrational. Different people groups joining or adhering to different religions doesn’t imply that all religions are equally valid. The task here as elsewhere is to weigh their claims rather than throw them out.

Suspending judgment in disagreements isn’t possible. The person who says he doesn’t seriously consider Christianity because he knows devout Hindus and Sikhs is suspending judgment regarding religions but isn’t suspending judgment regarding religion. What he’s really saying is that he believes all three groups of people are mistaken. What we should say is that in religion, as well as in other arenas of life, we must make judgments as best we can. We must ask whether it is true, not whether it is open.

Whether or not it is arrogant or mean to disagree with someone else’s beliefs is besides the point when considering its truthfulness. So, too, for that matter, is the sincerity with which the belief is held by others. If being convinced of a proposition is all it takes for it to be regarded as true, then we wouldn’t be able to be critical about any topic.

Pluralism Pluralizes Itself

I urge you not to be flippant here. There’s much more to say than “There are no absolute truths is an absolute truth.” Be that as it may, your audience is going to yawn or roll their eyes when you say that because I assure you they’ve heard it before. Let’s convey the argument, not just the conclusion.

One of the points we can make now we’ll make again under a different guise later because it addresses that relativistic core. Namely, if the objection can’t stand when turned against itself, we have reason to conclude it’s flawed.Insisting that another person is arrogant for trying to convert others is, in many contexts, an arrogant attempt to convert others to a secular worldview. If the criterion for truth is having a belief that no one disagrees with, then pluralism fails by its own standards. Many reasonable people, some of whom are in this room, disagree with pluralist arguments.

Keller does this magnificently time and again in his chapter titled There Can’t Be Just One True Religion. To say doctrines don’t matter is a doctrine in itself. To say that religions don’t teach the whole truth is inconsistent insofar as it claims to see the whole truth. Most damaging to contemporary objections, to say that all religious belief is culturally/historically conditioned and therefore not true is itself a culturally/historically conditioned claim.

There’s a deeper point here that has merit. The time, as well as the space, in which one lives limits one's propositional choices. Allegiance to science, which is the preferred alternative to religion, is not uniquely contemporary. There have been many people who turned to empirical study to answer life’s questions throughout the ages. At various points in modern history, science has taught gravity is a force, lead can be--at least theoretically--turned into gold, phlogiston is the fifth element, the continents do not move, randomness has no part in the material world, the universe is static, the universe is expanding, and nothing can travel faster than light. That is to say, scientific understanding is fallible. It has progressed.

It's a fact, albeit an unsavory one for scientifically-minded religious critics, that smart, well-read, and well-educated people denied the truth of plate tectonics, for example. That evidence was too scant to establish. 19th Century scientists believed there was no force sufficient to move the earth’s crust. So, the irreligious believer has problems with incongruity, too.

The point is: ideas fall into and out of fashion. When an idea is thoroughly in fashion, it’s difficult to question our assent to it. Most of our fellow citizens now go around believing in, for instance, freedom of speech. They feel like they have an inalienable right to say whatever they want. But when pressed about what exactly a “right” is, how they “have” it, and where they come from, they’re at a loss. This does not mean, of course, that rights don’t exist in some meaningful way. It means that some propositions are so common, have been uttered so frequently (beginning in elementary school), they are unreflectively adopted.

The critic makes at least one valid point. The basic availability of propositions is not a good reason to believe them. A kid shouldn’t be a Christian simply and solely because their parents were.

More importantly, though, the propositions we have access to and the extent of our access to them are influenced by our historical and geographical situation. It's easier to be convinced of a proposition you've heard a thousand times than it is to be convinced of one you've never heard. What is heard most is most often believed and what is not heard at all is rarely conceived, let alone believed.

However, as illustrated above, religious circles and the people reared therein are not the only groups influenced by disproportionately available systems of belief. In multicultural environments (such as our own), irreligion is the dominant viewpoint of media since it has the greatest sellability. Swaths of the market are not cut off through offending listeners/readers with a preference towards one of the perceived cultures. Instead, the media establishes itself as the voice of the objective common ground of non-culture (which is, of course, its own culture rife with its own oft-uttered propositions). These factors need to be accounted for in auditing our assent to propositions.

To apply this point, invite the person who thinks we’re ignorant for believing ourselves to be right to consider what beliefs he or she holds that he or she thinks is wrong. If he thinks that religious belief is a product of indoctrination, ask them how they came by their own irreligious beliefs.

Responses to Intolerance

Since God is accused of intolerance and we are guilty by association, the best defenses will draw from God’s true character.

God Is Just

God is just. It follows that He judges in light of the extent of one's knowledge. Those who are more knowledgeable will be held to higher standards because responsibility increases with understanding. Jesus illustrates this point in an exchange with the Apostle Peter. He tells Peter punishment will be less severe for people who knew God's will for humanity less. (Luke 12:35-48). The parable's emphasis is on the consequences for people who have heard God's Word. Jesus concludes his story with these words of caution, "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more." (Luke 12:48) This principle is in keeping with fairness and does not affront our conscience. Later, the Apostle James warns teachers of the gospel will "be judged with greater strictness." (James 3:1) We see from these repeated emphases people who have heard are not let off easy for their exposure to the gospel.  On the contrary, they are more culpable for their sins.

Furthermore, God’s knowledge may extend to the hypothetical. He could know what we would do if given an opportunity. Jesus demonstrates this sort of knowledge when he castigates the residents of one city for their skepticism. He assured them, had the same works been performed in the presence of other cities, its citizens would have repented. (Luke 10:13) It follows that God could know how a given person would react upon hearing the gospel. God could know that there are people who, if they heard of Jesus, would immediately believe, others who would hear and immediately disbelieve, others who would be skeptical and wrestle with belief for years and, in the end, assent, and still others who would undergo the same protracted, sincere struggle and ultimately reject. This means that God's just judgment of people is not based on accident such as location, but on essence, on whom a person most sincerely has been, is, and would have been.

God Is Evident

This objection presupposes that those who haven’t heard verbally don’t have access to the information to be saved. It may be, however, that the necessary information can be gathered in nature through effort on their part and grace on God’s. God does not solely reveal himself through his word, after all. Although revelation in the Bible is the fullest, most complete and direct vehicle of the knowledge of God, it is far from the only means. The wider world he created proclaims him in its beauty, design, and majesty. Humans, his prized creation, are pulled toward him in all their capacities—their appetites, passion, and reason (both practical and theoretical).

General revelation guarantees everyone can know that God is powerful, moral, and has designed the universe. This accounts for the Apostle Paul’s statement in Romans 1:20, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

What we need to make clear is that the human problem isn’t one of unawareness of God. It’s more that we try to suppress that knowledge. We Christians can attest to that fault.

God Is Inclusive

We must reject the assumption that God plays favorites. Despite our apparent diversity, we are essentially alike. Biblical language is frequently universal in its scope, referring to the sum of humankind. All members of humanity have a privileged place in the universe. The triune God resolved at the beginning of creation, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." (Genesis 1:26) Each individual is bestowed dignity from his/her divine semblance. We are able to relate to our God because of the germ of similarity.

Since God has invited so many, we shouldn’t be arrogant because of our personal invitations. We know that grace is a gift and that God is especially inclined to call the poor and foolish. We know that it’s not because we are special or worthy that we’ve been extended God’s favor, so we shouldn’t hold ourselves in higher esteem and scoff at members of other groups, religious or otherwise.

Christ’s healing of the rupture between God and humankind enables humankind to be unified as well. Christians should be agents of this reconciliation in the societies they've been placed. We are told to be welcoming and hospitable to others as our Heavenly Father is. Paul in his first letter to Timothy tells his audience to pray for all people, within and outside the faith. He explains that doing so pleases God, "who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time." (1 Timothy 2:3-6)

God Is Missional

The objection makes it seem as though humans care more about others’ salvation than God does, but we must say that’s not the case. Scripture make clear that our God is a missionary God. He sent His son to us, to a specific place and time to blaze a path of salvation. He is concerned about every tribe and nation, which is why He promised that everyone will hear the Gospel preached in their own tongue on the Pentecost.

Since then, God has sent us out as well. We are commissioned to bring the Gospel to the ends of the earth. We Christians bear our share of the blame for Scripture’s global circumscription. That the Gospel has failed to reach certain regions is the church’s failure for reluctance. In the records of the early church in Acts and elsewhere, the Gospel was spread against Christians will as it were. Only after being captured, did the word go out.

That Jesus has not yet returned demonstrates God is granting his church more time to spread the word. Peter writes, "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) Until his second coming, we must be diligent in our witnessing.

(return to Apologetics page)