"All religions are basically the same.
Every religion has something like the golden rule and stresses loving your neighbor.
Let's celebrate all spiritual beliefs!" This way of thinking is all the rage.
The woods are a 'teemin with lawyers, doctors, teachers, and talk show hosts who fervently hold to this brand of pluralism.
Before we throw our lot in with the pluralist crowd, though, we should pause and think.
Is it really true that all religions are fundamentally the same? A moment's reflection will tell you this notion is hopelessly bankrupt.
For starters, some religions don't have the golden rule.
Others don't stress loving one's neighbor.
In fact, goodness isn't even on the radar screen with some religions.
Past that, even among the religions that have something like the golden rule, it isn't central.
If you analyze the central tenets of the world's major religions, for example, you will see they are worlds apart.
Just start with the different faith's concept of God.
Lining up the different characteristics of God should cure you of pluralism.
The concepts aren't just different, mind you: many of them are contradictory--they can't both be true.
For example, God is either personal (Islam, Judaism, Christianity), or He is impersonal (many forms of Hinduism).
Either He is a trinity (Christianity), or not (Islam).
The same thing happens when you line up each religion's core doctrine on other things.
What sense does it make to say that these beliefs can all be true? God can't be both personal and impersonal.
He can't both exist and not exist.
Jesus can't both have died on a cross and not died on a cross.
These are not claims about personal tastes; they are claims about reality, and therefore they are subject to the laws of logic.
I've heard an objection that when it comes to religion, "what's true for you might not be true for me.
" Is this a good way of thinking? It is not like we are talking about food tastes, which are subjective.
No, these are all claims about what really happens after you die.
They apply to reality.
That doesn't mean they are false; it just means that they can't all be true.
I have heard the rejoinder that "this either/or way of thinking is just a western logical system.
In the east, people are perfectly comfortable embracing contradictory views.
" In the east, the argument goes, a both/and system of thinking is popular, over against the western either/or way.
Therefore, they reject the belief that God can't be both personal and impersonal.
Don't fall for this! Even in Tibet, they run when they see a charging bull; they understand that it's either them or the bull, not both.
It might look like the "both/and" system reigns supreme, but at bottom, reality is still fundamentally either/or when it comes to contradictory beliefs.
Notice that the easterners who harp on the "both/and" choose that way of thinking *instead of* the either/or.
So the next time somebody starts pontificating about how all religions are basically the same, take it with the proverbial grain of salt.
As my favorite author humorously quips, aspirin and arsenic both come in tablet form, but it's the differences that count!