Earlier this week, I quoted CS Lewis:
“If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all those religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the questions that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.
But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic—there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong; but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.”
A good many people today would take issue with CS Lewis. They would say in math there is “only one right answer.” But in everything else—ethics, morality, as well as religion and all spiritual matters—there can be no right answer, because no final answer is possible. This is a very simplified description of the term postmodernism that we hear so much about today.
The Modern period began in the 16th century with the happy confidence that human reason was up to the challenge of making the world a better place.. Whether it was truth about the natural world or truth about the existence of God made no difference— final, absolute truth was “out there” (as they used to say in the “X Files” TV show) and, given enough time, humans would find it.
The Postmodern period began in the middle of the last century in Europe and toward the end of the century in America. During the 20th century—two World Wars, Vietnam, fear of nuclear holocaust during the Cold War, the social revolutions of the 60’s and 70’s—people began to question that human reason was creating a better and better world. As confidence in the power of reason declined, so did belief that there was any absolute truth “out there” for reason to discover. Instead, truth can to be seen simply as subjective, personal experience. If this is the case, then “your truth” is no better and no worse than “my truth.” Everyone’s truth is equal.
You know the story of the blind men and the elephant. One man feels the tusks and says, “The elephant is like a sharp spear.” Another grabs hold of the trunk and says, “No, the elephant is like a snake.” A third wraps his arms around a leg, and says, “No, the elephant is like a tree.” And so on.
This classic children’s story is postmodernism’s metaphor for world religions—each is encountering a small part of God. Unlike CS Lewis with his math analogy, in the elephant story no one can claim the “right” answer because everyone’s answer is only partly right. Everyone touches only a small part of the elephant.
This attitude feels good in our highly pluralistic world. No one can deny that throughout history religious people have used worldly power to exploit and dominate others for the sake of religion. The upshot is that well-meaning people have concluded—“let’s just agree that there is no ultimate truth.” If we agree that all religions are equally true, religious tolerance will increase and religious conflicts will go away.
But when you look a little closer, it’s pretty obvious that this view is illogical.
Take for example the idea of God. In Buddhism, there is no god at all, only a path of enlightenment to reach nirvana, which is total nothingness, the elimination of all desire. In Hinduism, there is also no personal god, for Brahma is an impersonal all-pervading force of the universe—God and the universe are identical.
Is it not illogical that religions with a personal deity (like Judaism, Islam and Christianity)—and religions that deny any personal deity (like Buddhism and Hinduism)—can be equally true? A personal deity either exists or does not exist. Someone must be wrong.
Or take the simple idea of salvation. Satanists (a world religion) accept the reality of God, but seek salvation through Satan, God’s complete antithesis. Could a religion that believes in salvation through God—and a religion that believes in salvation through Satan, God’s opposite in every way—simply be two different paths that will meet at the summit of the same mountain?
Our worldview is important. If our worldview suggests there is no final truth “out there,” we can maintain all religions are equally true. But it seems we must bend the basic rules of logic to do so. The postmodernist might reply, “Well, logic itself is suspect.” Where does that leave us? More on this next week.
