The problem with pluralism: how postmodern thought has destroyed reason

From Ean:

By far the most common objection I have seen against Christianity is an attack that comes in multiple forms: The bottom line is “pluralism” but is masked as “tolerance.”

“If you’re a Christian, do you really believe that muslims and atheists are going to hell? That’s very intolerant of you.”

“I think all walks of life and religions have some truth to them.”

“What makes you think that your religion is correct, especially when there are others?”

“Even if you’re Christian, that’s just your truth. That’s not true for others!”

Firstly, we can refute the “tolerance” argument with ease, though it’s not the point of this article:

Tolerance is the allowance of new ideas. To a non-christian, Christianity can be considered a new idea. With this knowledge, I have a question; are you being intolerant of my supposed intolerance? Even if I somehow fall under this harsh label, the accuser is not accepting my new ideas. Thus, this poorly framed argument is just another slogan used to guilt trip Christians.

Now we can examine the claims and attacks on the basis of pluralism and relativism.

Pluralism is an idea that all religions and their respective ideologies and worldviews are equal in value. Relativism is the idea that truth is subjective along with religion and its beliefs.

Here is the problem that I hold with pluralism: there is and can only be one truth, as defined below with our argument(s) against relativism. Since objective truth is objectively true, there is only truth to behold that does not conform to someone’s mere opinion or experience.

We also intuitively know this through the law of non-contradiction, which states that two opposite ideas can not both be true at the same time and in the same sense. 

Let me give an example between Christianity and Islam:

Christianity teaches trinitarianism, that God is one divine essence in three persons that make up the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Because of this, when God took on flesh through his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, Christ was fully man and fully God. Christianity teaches that Christ was truly crucified as a propitiation for the sins of man. However, Islam differs in its teaching: Islam says that Jesus is a prophet of Allah, and does not have deity, and that Allah can not be and is not a father in any way nor sense. Islam also teaches that Jesus was not truly crucified; Allah only created the illusion that Jesus was crucified.

These are only small portions of juxtaposed belief systems between Christians and muslims that clash with one another. Jesus can not just be a human prophet without deity, and be the son of God at the same time and in the same sense, as the aforementioned law states.

However, it should be easy to know this; this law of non-contradiction is intuitive. It’s impossible for both to be true, yet postmodern and modern liberal cultures will tell us the contrary. It’s very clear to us that only one can be true, and by examining the evidence between both worldviews, we know that anyone who is truly intellectually honest is or will become a Christian.

How is it that such simple truths and observations have become so awfully skewed in our society? You can easily find people on college campuses and on public street corners yelling  these slogans at preachers and evangelists and all Christians alike. It’s very upsetting that there is such blindness present in our society, but this is how satan operates; he wants to cloud our vision and keep us so distracted with worldly and contemporary niceties that we may never truly consider the truth of God and the questions of Jesus Christ’s resurrection that humans cannot answer without divine revelation. 

How is it that people are now equating Christianity, a religion of kindness and respect, to a religion that commands its followers to take hostage those who do not agree with them (Quran 2:190-191), to kill the apostates who leaves Islam (Quran 4:89), to be able to marry slave girls (Quran 4:25) and beat their wives (Quran 4:34)? 

The latter sounds intolerant to me. So much for the “religion of peace.”

How has reason become so demented in our so-called elevated education?

It’s so, so easy and intuitive to both see and know that truth is not subjective and does not operate as such, yet people are so intolerant of Christianity that they will label and berate you with incredibly weak and easily disputable claims.

God’s existence can not and does not differ between different people: your own thoughts on the issue do not render God in and out of reality: in fact, something eternal as God is necessitated through our universe. If Christianity is true, it changes the playing field.

From Aedan:

We live in a world where inclusivity and open dialogue, pluralism and relativism have gained significant traction, shaping cultural and intellectual landscapes across the world. While a moderate form of pluralism can foster meaningful discussion and mutual respect, a maximal approach (where all perspectives are treated as equally true, regardless of contradiction) presents serious philosophical and practical problems. When taken with a maximal approach, pluralism and relativism erode away objective truth and undermine intellectual and moral clarity and weaken the foundations upon which societies and individuals establish meaning.Maximal pluralism asserts that all beliefs and perspectives deserve equal recognition and validity. However, this position quickly collapses under logical scrutiny. If two ideas directly contradict one another, both cannot be simultaneously correct. For example, if one worldview asserts that Jesus is Lord and rose from the dead (Christianity) while the other asserts that Jesus was a prophet sent by God and was not God (Islam), treating both of these views with equal truth is a contradiction. Jesus cannot be God and not be God at the same time. One has to be true and the other has to be false. An environment where all ideas are equal eliminates the need for critical examination and intellectual discernment.

A maximal pluralistic framework discourages the pursuit of objective truth. When all viewpoints are seen as equally legitimate, there is no motivation to examine the evidence on which each worldview stands. The boundaries between truth and falsity become blurred. A society that refuses to differentiate between sound reasoning and faulty claims risks embracing falsehoods without challenge.Relativism argues that all truth is contingent on perspective, culture, or individual interpretation, denying any objective reality. However, the assumption that “all truth is relative” is itself a self-defeating claim. If that were universally true, then at least one absolute truth would exist, contradicting the premise of relativism. This paradox makes maximal relativism an unstable and illogical foundation for thought.

When truth and morality are treated as fluid concepts without any grounding, individuals and societies struggle to establish meaning. Purpose is often derived from the pursuit of objective truth, whether through philosophy, science, religion, or ethics. If all meaning is relative, no concept holds enduring significance, leading to existential uncertainty and a lack of conviction in both personal and collective endeavors.

Ultimately, maximal pluralism and relativism may appear inclusive and liberating, but their unchecked application leads to logical contradictions, moral uncertainty, and societal fragmentation. Truth must be pursued, not diluted. Morality must be upheld, not rendered meaningless. And intellectual discourse must encourage genuine understanding rather than indiscriminate validation. A world that values both diversity and discernment fosters deeper wisdom, stronger communities, and a more meaningful human experience.