Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw once stated, “There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it.” In today’s pluralistic society, many people find that interpretation of religion very appealing. Can it be that all the religions of the world are different, yet valid, paths up the same mountain? Do all roads lead to Rome? If this were the case, that would render all discussions of which religion is the “true” religion pointless. Perhaps this would lead to less religious bigotry. But on the other hand, what if all paths don’t lead to Rome? If that is true, then each one of us must make an informed choice about the truth that will have very significant consequences. This makes religion more than a matter of preference or a matter of what works, but a matter of truth. Those who maintain that all religions are differing yet valid routes to the same place might be sincere and nice people, but their belief misses the point. The point is: Are the claims of religious traditions merely matters of taste, or are they also matters of truth? It is obvious that two contradicting statements about the same thing cannot both be true. For example, it is nonsense to say that the statement “John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas” is just a subjective belief, personal taste. In the same vein, it is just as silly to claim that the statement “Jesus of Nazareth physically rose from the dead after being crucified,” or that “God exists” is a subjective matter of taste and nothing more. No, either Jesus did rise from the dead or he didn’t; either God exists or he doesn’t. Either God is one personal being like Jews claim, or God is an impersonal force, like many Hindus claim, not both. Either Jesus is God in the flesh, like Christians claim, or he was just a prophet, like the Muslims claim, not both. To avoid this, one must severely twist and reinterpret the conflicting truth claims of other religions. So for someone who says “that might be true for you but not true for me,” he fails to think critically and misses the point.Another objection people make is that what really matters is the sincerity of a person’s beliefs. Sincerity definitely is important, but there’s more to it than sincerity. If I pick up a flask of clear liquid labeled “sulfuric acid” in chemistry class, and I sincerely believe with all my heart that it is water and I gulp it down, I will be sincerely dead in a few minutes.Also, often someone who claims that there is only one true religion and all the others are false, or that there is an absolute truth, is labeled as intolerant or narrow-minded. In the past, tolerance meant that I disagreed with you, but allowed you to hold your views nonetheless. However, today tolerance has come to mean not even being able to criticize the truthfulness of another religion. In today’s version of tolerance, we can’t even say that a certain religion is wrong or that absolute truth exists. The bottom falls out of this position as well, for if someone abrades me for criticizing another’s views, I will simply reply: “Why are you criticizing me then?” It seems like my critic simply fells himself by his own sword. Instead of thinking critically about the truth of religions and asking the critical questions themselves, these people rant and rave about being judgmental, while at the same time, delivering their own judgments.In conclusion, I encourage everyone to drop the notion of all religions being just one flavor of the same truth, and to start taking truth claims, especially those of religions. I encourage you to ask: “What is the truth? Is what I believe about the nature of reality accurate?”
Rich Bordner is a junior majoring in English.