In Response to John Hick and Religious Pluralism/Relativism

Religious Pluralism, in various forms, has been present for centuries and even millennia. However, it has been propagated, as of late, by Professor John Hick. He has refined and forged Religious Pluralism into what it has become today. It is now widely accepted and has become a formidable opponent of Christianity. Pluralism is often referred to by many as Religious relativism. Although complex theological and philosophical differences occur between Pluralism and Religious Relativism, they can, for general and common use, be interchanged. These worldviews often accuse other religions, specifically Christianity, of being exclusivists and more vaguely of being judgmental. These claims are guilty of self-refuting fallacy which is simply explained. Relativists, especially, believe that there are no absolutes and furthermore that Christians are intolerant for asserting that they alone hold truth. These statements are themselves absolutes and moreover the Relativists are believing themselves to hold the only truth: that there is no truth. With this information we can explore a key difference between Relativism and Pluralism. Where Relativism says all religions are only true to those who believe them, Pluralism says all religions are partially true and useful for morality in society, however no religion is complete. John Hick, father of modern Pluralism, after an early life as a part of the Christian church, came to this conclusion of Pluralism after discovering similar and generally homogenous levels of morality in people form different cultural and religious backgrounds. This experience placed in him an inability to accept any religion to claim to hold a monopoly on truth, because it seemed apparent to him that no religion produced any “morally superior” persons. Since he could not accept that any religion holds exclusive right to total and transcendent truth, he conjectures that these beliefs and religions point us to an unknowable “Real.” What is bothersome about Pluralism, in its quest to be consistent, which is at least more honorable than that of Relativism, is its necessity to manipulate the quintessential tenets of a religion that may in some way contradict the views of Pluralism. For example, Pluralism disputes and denies the resurrection and deity of Christ. Now belief on this doctrine is the utter foundation the whole of Christianity is built upon, however, for Pluralism to not dispute thus would be inconsistent and therefore unnecessary. For if they agree that Christ was God, the Ultimate Reality, became flesh, and revealed himself to us, would that not be complete? The unknowable “Real” has then become knowable and has said that He, Christ, is the only media of salvation. In this hope can be found, however, Pluralism provides no hope, no knowledge and no viable help to man. Pluralism, it would seem, is yet another way man tries to avoid true reality and a way man can shape his beliefs around himself rather than shaping himself around his beliefs.