Well I’ve finally dug myself out from under a pile of year-end marking and grad has come and gone, so I thought I should at least wrap up some of the topics we covered over the past few weeks of my apologetics class. We spent the last few classes talking about the challenge of pluralism which is a loose way of referring to the basic sentiment that any kind of exclusive faith is untenable (and probably arrogant) in a world in which there are so many religious (or irreligious) options available.
A fairly important distinction (as always) concerns some of the different ways the word ‘pluralism’ is understood. The significant shift here has been that the word has gone from describing a fact (there are many different options), to expressing a preference (it’s a good thing there are many different options) to prescribing an evaluation (it is wrong to discriminate between different options). The word is currently used primarily with one of the last two meanings in mind.
The basic motivation for advocates of pluralism is avoiding particularism - the uncomfortable idea that ‘the truth’ could be expressed primarily within one particular tradition or one particular way. We don’t like to think that lots of sincere, morally decent and otherwise pleasant people could be at least partially wrong regarding their basic beliefs. So pluralism is put forward as an alternative. For many, it seems better to evacuate all perspectives of their exclusive claims to truth and affirm their therapeutic value instead.
So whatever devout religious adherents think they are doing, what they are really doing is expressing their own partial and limited understanding of an ultimate reality is beyond any one perspective. The problem is that most religious perspectives make real claims about ‘the way things are’ and most seem fairly resistant to paternalistic reminders that those truth claims are simply partial attempts at explaining a reality that is beyond them (a reality that, interestingly, only the pluralist sees).
The irony is that the pluralist has argued that of all the perspectives on the table, the ‘true believer’ is the one who is wrong. I, for example, may happen to think that Jesus Christ is the definitive revelation of the character of God but in reality that is just my particular way of approaching things. I am basically wrong about what is going on in the religious realm and my view is clarified in light of what the pluralist argues is really happening. The same could be said for any other religious perspective that claimed to tell the truth about the way things are.
So the circle is complete. The pluralist, motivated by the desire to avoid telling people that they are wrong, has told most people that they are wrong. Motivated by a distaste for totalizing worldviews, he has offered a total view of ‘the truth’ that relativizes all particular perspectives that do not fit within one particular scheme.
All this to say that, while there is a certain attraction to the idea that each religious (or irreligious) perspective is right in its own way, the stubborn question of what is actually the case about reality will not go away. The pluralist perspective, for all its apparent generosity and tolerance, is still offering a vision of what is true and this vision, while it appears to accommodate all others, actually serves to trivialize them to the point of irrelevance.
This is not to say that there is not a needed rebuke here. Christians have long been guilty of an over-confident approach that smugly assumes the corner on truth while remaining ignorant of the social and cultural factors that have influenced their beliefs. So the reminder of the ‘partial’ nature of all human knowledge is a good and necessary one but it does not absolve us of the task of seeking to discover what is actually the case. The fact that our knowledge is incomplete is not evidence the truth is inaccessible.
I get the sense that pluralism and consumerism are intertwined… What do you think?
Just wondering if accepting the partial nature of knowledge precludes the neglect of the pursuit of truth. Are you noticing specific writers and thinkers that are making that connection in their thinking? Is this a notion that is arising out of a trend you are seeing generally?
Part of the tone of your piece here sounded almost threatened which frankly surprizes me a little (but then I might be misreading the tone).
I’m not sure that I have seen Pluralism in quite the same way. I just don’t see pluralistic people as eager to discount anyone’s point of view - even that of Christianity. Like I said before, I think I was expecting alot more hositility at university toward the Christian perspective. But i simply have not found it as strongly as i anticipated. Certainly the young people are very open and accepting and even the professors are for the main largely accomodating. The response is even more open if I am able to verbalize some of my own questions and doubts.
It’s not that I don’t see pluralism - I do!
I am just not sure that i would characterize it in the same way you have. I see significant concerns similar to ones you raised. But I am more concerned with people just not paying attention to the ideas they are entertaining.
Maybe I am missing something important - a trend or school of thought or political agenda that is more conniving than I have previously considered.
The two current uses of the word pluralism - “preference” and “evaluation” seem practical to me.
When a person decides on a preference for the most likely worldview to be considered as the only true worldview, they have choices - something I think anyone who advocates for “freewill” would appreciate.
For Christians who genuinely believe their worldview is the only true one (particularism), I’m sure they would appreciate that their worldview is known of and well represented in a culture that is steeped in another religion. That way, natives of that culture have comparisons to recognize for themselves what the truth is.
And to protect the rights of those natives who want the opportunity to explore other religions, such as Christianity, the political make-up in their society requires, as you phrased, an “evaluation” of religion.
To me, pluralism is an effort to protect a person’s right to practice the religion of their choosing. I think any nation that practices particularism (including those that exclude Christianity) should take the rights of their citizens in consideration.
Dale,
All I meant to point out was that pluralism as an idea (or an ideology) faces an internal contradiction that is often unacknowledged. It is an effort to deal with the problem of many competing ‘particular views’ that is itself a particular view that attempts to make sense of everything.
This obviously does not make everyone who holds such a view hostile to Christianity or any other particular faith. I don’t think I implied that in the post above. I think that exclusivist faiths (not just Christianity) generally come in for rough treatment in the academic world but how much that trickles down to actual interactions between the people you’re rubbing shoulders with is obviously a different story.
I would expect that at the level of personal interactions there would continue to be a level of openness and tolerance expressed toward all views while that the level of ‘academic’ discourse there would be increasing distaste for exclusive views.
Jessica,
I think both pluralism and consumerism would have deep roots in the Enlightenment and the emerging idea of the rationally sovereign individual. This relatively recent ‘fact’ has changed nearly everything about the way we live - from politics to economics to religion.
The individual is autonomous and this has led to what one author has called the ‘therapeutic orientation’. What he means by this is that we tend to evaluate and choose nearly everything in our lives according to one criterion: the subjective experience of well-being. This applies to consumer choices, career choices, family choices (why have kids?) and even religious choices.
So I would definitely see a link between consumerism and pluralism but I see a common source in the Enlightenment notion of the sovereign individual.
Jerry,
I agree. There are many benefits to a ‘pluralist state,’ not least of which is the basic protection of of the individual’s ‘right to choose’ (interesting in light of Jessica’s observation). I don’t see a better alternative and certainly would not want to go back to the idea of ‘national religion’.
The only danger I would see would be that an organizational decision (how can we all get along and protect each other?) could lead to an ideological decision (therefore none of these can possibly be true). I don’t think the second follows from the first.