An Objection to Exclusivity - Response Part 3

Here again is the third of four parts to my friend's objection:

If we're ever going to move toward world peace, we have to quit this "my view is better than your view" stuff and realize we're all moving toward the same goal. In other words, exclusivity is out, and inclusivism is what we really need.

The overwhelming mood in our culture today when it comes to worldviews and morals seems to be one of pragmatism and relativism. By that I mean it is often said by those in step with the current philosophical mood that "what is true for you may not be true for me." Now, what my friend is saying is not that exactly, but it is related. I understand that the main emphasis in my friend's mind is probably that we would be better off without biggotry, condemnation of those who are of differing worldviews, etc., and I agree with him strongly on that.

However, I have come to realize that what is said by the in-vogue philosophers cannot hold its own water. If a person claims that anything is able to be true and untrue at the same time, they are not listening to themselves. Why? Because, their statement must include itself (is their sentence both true and untrue?). For example, if I say "there is nothing that is totally (absolutely) true," I am contradicting my own statement, for I am saying essentially "I (truly) know (absolutely) that there are no absolutes." See what I mean?

Now, that's the extreme relativism position. My friend however is not at that extreme, but is instead saying "one worldview is no better than another," or "one person's opinion of what is true is no better than anyone else's." In some circumstances that may be so, but not always. An opinion, or even an entire worldview, is simply an attempt at stating the truth. So, here's the obvious: If the person correctly states the truth, their opinion or worldview is correct (true); otherwise, the opinion is false. If one person's opinion is that an Aluminum Alloy has a higher ultimate strength than that of 4340 steel, another person of the opposite opinion can be shown to be right through simple tests. This is just one instance in which two opinions not always equally true.

So is the same true in "non-scientific" matters? Of course. Take for instance emotional states. If one person claims to have been emotionally wounded by a comment someone made to them, and the someone is totally unaware of the pain they caused, the pain is real, not true for one and not the other. Rather, one person is simply oblvious to the facts.

Therefore, one cannot simply say that all worldviews are equally valid because they are all just opinions of the truth at some level. Some opinions are true to the facts, others are not. Further, I would say that it is more reasonable to say that all the religions of the world (including those held by only one individual) have a better chance at being wrong than it is to say that all of them are equally true. Why? Because they contradict one another on the major points. Not on what is right and wrong morally so much as on the issues of "who is God and what is He like?" "who are we?" "why are we here?" "how do I obtain fellowship with God?"

Now the question is, "Do the claims of the Bible measure up with the facts?" If so, then it is true that Jesus is the God-man who has done everything man needs in order to have fellowship with God forever, and the only way man can obtain that fellowship is by accepting the free gift by simply believing (not blindly, but based on what they know) -- no work to be done, no morals to be followed, no penance to be paid, etc. If it doesn't measure up to the facts, then let's just call it a lie and find out what the truth really is - let's stop trying to make each other feel good about believing lies by saying "that's great for you, but it's not for me."

Truth really matters to world peace (and I'm not even going to talk about peace in the context of eternity). A religion that promotes forced conversions is not peaceful, but a God who teaches his followers by example to lay down his life for others is promoting peace. The God who utters no objection when He is being slaughtered by His own creation is exemplifying love and promoting peace. But, let's not take a naive approach to promoting peace and general welvare by ignoring whether or not what we promote is based on truth. If our goal is simply to get all the people of the world to the finish line well fed, clothed, with decent shelter (general welfare) and dieing of natural causes (peacfully), we are a pitiful creature. Where is the meaning in that life? I would say that is not peace, but some perversion of it and that it is instead nearly sinister. Thankfully, I think we are something far greater, and have a wonderful role to play in the universe.