Reflections on Religious Pluralism

Religious pluralism, as I understand it, argues that the plurality of religions in the world represent the different ways in which "the All" or "the One" or what have you (the ultimate, hidden spiritual reality) has revealed itself to human beings.

I think that a decent objection to this kind of religious pluralism comes from the exclusivity claims made by nearly every world religion (some forms of Hinduism are an exception). If "the All" has revealed itself differently to some set of cultures, and if any revelation includes an exclusivity claim, then we must say that "the All" is being quite inconsistent, even dishonest. The inconsistency can be remedied if we become polytheists, in which case all our religions would seem to be the revelation of a plurality entities that are either daemonic or confused. Of course, if that constitutes "the All," then where did these entities originate? Not only is this a highly unpleasant solution since it admits of dishonesty or confusion, but it also raises a much bigger ontological problem. Besides, it seems to me that a religious pluralist would very much prefer "the All" to be a unity, for to do otherwise would be to admit that fundamentally all religions are quite different, depending on their particular source of revelation from within "the All," which would itself be pluralistic. Again, polytheism solves nothing and creates new problems.

So we are back to accounting for a plurality of religions with exclusivity claims from a unified source. It could be that "the All" is confused or dishonest, though a unity, but if we want "the All" to be anything like a mature concept of God, then this is absolutely precluded. Further, if "the All" is dishonest or incompetent, why should religion be a concern at all? Except for fear of this excessively powerful villain or imbecile (imbecilic villain?), there is no apparent reason to honor any expression of devotion to any god, spirit, &c. If indeed it is important to the advocates of religious pluralism to respect the diversity of beliefs in the world, this is not the way to do it.

Having dealt with some concepts of "the All" as being in some way or other inferior, let us ask ourselves whether a concept of "the All" more akin to traditional monotheism will work. In this case, God, bearing all his superlative attributes, including omniscience and omnibenevolence, has revealed countless falsities to different people groups. For any two exclusivity claims are necessarily contradictory. So a mature monotheism is incompatible with this type of religious pluralism. Suppose, however, that the inconsistent elements like the exclusivity claims were not revealed, but rather found their way in via misinterpretation of the true revelation. Aside from the touch of ad hoc-ness about it and complete lack of historical basis (how can we tell genuine revelation from misinterpretation), the misinterpretation solution simply fails once again to solve the fundamental problem. If the pluralist wants to preserve the integrity of different religions, he or she cannot do so when so many essential claims made by one religion are in radical opposition to claims made by another. The differences that are supposed to be valued on this view turn out to be errors on a grand scale. Exclusivity, after all, is essential to Christianity, as it is to Islam, as it is to Judaism, &c.

The only alternative that I can see standing is some form of pantheism. "God or Nature," as Spinoza put it in his famed identity statement. In this case the revelation is nature itself, being God, and so a variety of interpretation is to be expected. Indeed, this is even suggested by referring to the source of revelation as "the All." In one form, pantheism can say that the only revelation God is offering is general revelation, since by revealing Nature God reveals itself as it is. This is problematic, however, since so much content in the world's religions comes from claims of special revelation that in no way depend on nature. So the pluralist must either abandon respect for those parts of the worlds religions, thereby abandoning respect for most parts of the world's religions, or the pluralist must allow for "the (pantheistic) All" to make special revelations. Say, by making the claim that Nature has one universal consciousness in which all human beings participate, from which spiritual insights are drawn. This, however, falls into the same problems as the non-pantheistic possibilities do, as does any form of special revelation on pluralism. Spiritualizing nature does nothing to advance the pluralist case.

I can only reach one conclusion. In an effort to take all beliefs seriously, religious pluralists wind up with a vaguely spiritual, intellectually vapid existentialism that ends up taking no beliefs seriously.