Looks like Justin Brierley on the Unbelievable radio show found a pastor with a Ph.D in philosophy, and he can really whip some ass. And that’s a good thing, because he is taking on one of the two leading proponents of religious pluralism, in my opinion, (the other being Paul Knitter).
John Hick is a noted philosopher and theologian who is a proponent of a pluralist view of religion – that there is one light (God) but many lampshades (religious expressions).
Chris Sinkinson is a pastor and Bible tutor who has critiqued Hick’s work. He says that pluralism empties Christianity of any content and in its own way disrespects other religions more than his own exclusivist stance.
The MP3 file is here.
Justin does a great job as moderator of this debate. He said what I was thinking of saying a number of times during the debate.
Anyway, here is my snarky summary. I creatively paraphrase some of the things that Hick says to make it more clear. And funny.
- had an experience looking at the buildings of other religions
- other religions have buildings, so all religions are equal
- I spent some time in the East, and met nice Eastern people
- since Eastern people are nice that means all religions are equal
- isn’t Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive path to salvation offensive?
- all religions that are exclusive and have to deal with religious pluralism
- even John Hick writes polemically in favor of his own view
- even John Hick thinks that religions that are exclusive are false
- what about the blind man and the elephant?
- the story seems to say that other people have a partial grasp?
- but the story-teller himself has the privileged view
- so isn’t the religious pluralist just as arrogant as exclusivists?
- well, it’s not arrogant to claim to have the right answer
- Jesus never made the claim to be God incarnate
- Jesus never made the claim to be the exclusive path to God
- historians don’t think that John’s gospel is reliable because it is late
- the proclamation of exclusivity was added by evangelists much later
- the historians who doubt the high Christology are radical skeptics
- the mainstream of historical scholarship accepts a high Christology
- the EARLIEST history about Jesus has the highest Christology
- the moderate scholars do think Jesus was divine but that he didn’t think he was divine
- the phrase “Son of God” was used to describe any remarkable person
- only later did the early church turn the generic term into “God the Son”
- there is reflection on Jesus’ identity and developments, but not invention
- Jesus and his followers were in trouble precisely for linking him to deity
- why else would Jesus get into trouble and get crucified?
- the Romans crucified him because people were saying he was the Messiah
- but the Messiah was not identified as being divine, but political
- and that’s why the Romans crucified him
- do you (Sinkinson) think that people in other religions can be saved?
- the traditional view is exclusivism
- the other world religions are logically contradictory with Christianity
- you have to respect their differences – they are not the same as Christianity
- exclusivists allow that people can be saved by responding to natural theology
- and there are also other cases where non-Christians are saved, like old testament saints and babies who die in infancy
- but people’s religions are based on where they are born
- so it’s not fair for God to expect people to be saved in one religion only
- the plurality of religions grouped by location doesn’t make christianity false
- that would be the genetic fallacy – rejecting an idea because of its origin
- the real question to consider is whether it is true
- and even the objection assumes that God is a God of love, who should be fair
- but how do you know that God is loving? that is an exclusive view
- how can the “blob” ultimate of religious pluralism be “loving” and “fair”
- the ultimate reality is loving or not loving depending on each person’s religion
- but some religions and theistic and some are atheistic
- how can those God exist and not exist?
- God is beyond everyone’s understanding, except mine
- God is beyond all definitions, except mine
- God is beyond all human understanding, except mine
- i’m not contradicting myself, it’s a mystery! a mystery!
- as long as you don’t look to closely, they’re all the same!
- allow me to tell you about God, which no one can do but me
- doesn’t your religious pluralism mean that Christianity is false?
- well, Christianity can’t be true, because it disagrees with other religions
- Christianity can’t falsify other religions, that would be mean to them
- other religions are just as “profound” as Christianity – and that’s what matters – not whether a religion makes true claims
- some religions are older than Christianity, that means they can’t be disagreed with
- we can’t let Christianity be true, because then some people will feel bad
- if people feel bad, then they don’t like me and then I feel bad
- if there’s one thing I know about the unknowable ultimate reality, it’s that it wants me to be liked by lots of people
- your view seems to be agnosticism – that nothing can be known about the “ultimate real”
- if we can’t express in words what God is like, then why are you saying what God is like?
- the indescribable ultimate is described (falsely, but interestingly) by various tradition
- does the “ultimate real” exist?
- are all the exclusive religions wrong, and only you are right?
- all propositions about God in all the religions are false
- the experience of being deluded and having feelings about your delusions is “valid” in all religions
- all religions are equally good ways to believe false things and to have feelings about your false beliefs
- only my propositions about God are true
- everyone who disagrees with me is wrong
- so all the propositions of all the religions are wrong
- but all the experiences and feelings are “right”
- all propositions about God are humanly constructed, and so false
- except mine – mine are true!
- so everything distinctive about Christianity are literally false?
- yes, Christian doctrines are all false
- because if they were true, other religions would be false, and they would feel bad
- and we can’t have that, because everyone has to like me
- only things that don’t offend people in other religions can be true
- so do we have to then treat all religions as non-propositional?
- well just don’t ask people about the content of their beliefs
- just treat their religion as non-cognitive rituals, feelings and experiences
- don’t inquire too deeply into it, because all religions are all nonsense
- i’m very respectful and tolerant of different religions!
- but Muslims, for example, think their religion is making truth claims
- but there can be tolerance as long as you treat religions as non-propositional nonsense
- um, I have a higher respect for religions than you do
- I actually consider that the claims of other religions could be true
- I think that other religions make truth claims and not nonsense claims
- well they are all useful because they are all false
- I don’t emphasize beliefs, I emphasize living, experiences and feelings
- as long as everyone accepts my view and rejects their religion, we’ll all be tolerant
- erm, isn’t that an exclusive claim?
- you’re trying to say that your view of what religion is is right, and everyone else is wrong
- I’m not arrogant, I just think that all the religions of the worlds are false
- only my statements about religion are true – everyone else is wrong
- I’m tolerant, and Christians are arrogant
- but you think Sinkinson’s view is wrong
- why should we accept your view and deny his view?
- His view of salvation is false, and mine is true
- you use words with set meanings, but you mean completely different things
- when I say salvation, I mean deliverance from sins through Jesus
- I get to decide what salvation means for everyone, you intolerant bigot
- but that word has a specific meaning that has held true in all of Christian history
- but what you mean by salvation is people having subjective delusions that are not true
- I don’t like using the word salvation
- but you just used it!
- and you think that it is present in different world religions, but it isn’t
- God is unknowable and indescribable
- God isn’t a wrathful God though
- and the Christian description of God is false
- Evangelical Christians are mean
- I had experiences with people of other faiths
- and these experiences taught me that religions that think that the universe is eternal are true
- as long as you reduce religion to behaviors and not truth, then religions are all good at producing behaviors
- if you just treat all religions as clothing fashion and food customs, they are all valid
- the main point of religion is for people to agree on cultural conventions and stick to them
- never mind the propositional statements of religions… who cares about truth? not me!
- but Christianity is definitely false
- the Judeo-Christian God is different – he reveals himself to humans
- he is distinct from the other religions
- he is personal, and is loving but also angry at sin
- But God isn’t a person, and he isn’t a non-person
- I can’t say what he is – I’ll offend someone if I say anything at all!
- except Christians – I can offend them because they are arrogant bigots
- I’m also very spiritual – I meditate on my breathing
- you can’t assess a religion by the experiences that people have
- people who have weird experiences do all kinds of evil things
- so the real question has to be about truth – is the New Testament reliable?, etc.
Filed under: Podcasts, Apologetics, Buddhism, Chris Sinkinson, Debate, Exclusivism, Heaven, Hinduism, Inclusivism, Islam, Jesus, John Hick, Judaism, No Other Name, Paul F. Knitter, Paul Knitter, Salvation, Saved, Soteriology, Theology, Uniqueness, World Religions