Most students at Iowa State would probably fit into the category of religious pluralists, which simply means they would consider all religions equally true.

Such an individual would place a high emphasis on open-mindedness in viewing any sort of religion. This individual would never question the validity of another’s belief, and his/her “catch all” slogan says something like, “If your religion is true to you, then that’s all that matters.” It places a high emphasis on perception. If you perceive your beliefs to be true, then they are.

In an Oct. 20 letter to the editor, R.F. Heynis wrote, “Believe it or not, Christianity is not the only religion on this planet, and though millions may follow, sheep-like, the teachings of its Shepherd, millions of others follow different paths.”

I’d like to respond to this statement because I believe it well characterizes the attitude of most ISU students regarding religious issues. My only disclaimer is that the purpose of this article is NOT to attack R.F. Heynis, but to attack a certain view which I believe was implied by his statement.

Religious pluralism is the mood of society as a whole. It seems that open-mindedness has recently become synonymous with intellectual sophistication, and those that hold fast to their religious conviction are considered to lack any cerebral knowledge or intellectual rigor, says Ravi Zacharias, Christian apologist.

The problem with such a world view is that if taken to its logical conclusion, it can have disastrous consequences. Also, it is entirely self-defeating.

When analyzing all world views, we have three options. All world views are correct. All world views are incorrect. Or some world views are correct and some are incorrect.

Now, if all world views are correct, then all world views cannot be incorrect. Likewise, if all world views are incorrect, then all world views cannot be correct. Therefore, these two options cancel themselves out, and we are left with this option — some beliefs are correct and some are incorrect.

But if this is true, then we cannot be intellectually honest and simultaneously say with the pluralist, “It’s true if you believe it to be true.” It takes more than perceptions for a world view to be true. And if everything simply came down to perceptions, then I could logically perceive that R.F. Heynis doesn’t exist and therefore never wrote a letter to begin with.

The main problem with the pluralistic world view is that it could never challenge someone who might say, “It’s my religion to boil babies in oil.” How do we respond to someone who practices that religion if we accept the “open-minded” viewpoint?

The answer is that we can’t! Yet everyone would cry out for justice when hearing such a horrible story. This is all true because there are moral absolutes, truth is not relative. All religions are not equally true.

What’s ironic about this argument is that every student at ISU would wholeheartedly agree that all religions are not equally true. They simply state it in a different way. “It’s not right for me …” Whether one will admit it or not, this statement is simply a polite way of saying, “I believe your world view is incorrect.”

As well, the pluralistic world view is entirely self-defeating. It commits the error of self-negation. For example, if I said to you, “I cannot utter a word in English,” you would respond to me, “You just did.” In the process of telling you I can’t speak English, I was speaking English. Therefore, my argument was completely self-defeating.

Likewise, the pluralist commits a similar mistake. Someone will say something such as, “Everything is relative.” This world view can easily be refuted by asking one simple question, “Is that statement relative?”

The pluralist is in trouble either way the question is answered. If the statement isn’t relative, then not everything is relative (at least that statement). This however, was exactly what the pluralist was not trying to prove. On the other hand, if the statement is relative, then essentially he or she just said nothing, so one shouldn’t listen anyway. The fact of the matter is that truth is not relative.

Yet why have so many clung to a lack of conviction on religious issues? It makes no sense to me.

G.K Chesterton said, “The danger of not believing in God is NOT that people will believe in nothing. Alas, it is much worse. It is the danger that people will believe in ANYTHING.”

I think this is true, and if pluralism is taken to its logical conclusion and if the pluralist lives a life consistent with his/her beliefs, then “nothing in human experience is too vulgar where we can’t fly in some professor from somewhere to justify it.” These are the disastrous consequences!

It’s true, Christianity is not the only religion in the world. But, in studying the issues I have become utterly convinced that Christianity is the only credible option concerning a world view. Jesus Christ said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Nobody comes to the Father but through me.”

As well, the Scriptures say, “Salvation is found in no one else. For their is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

The implications of these statements are immense if Christianity is the only true world view, which I believe it is. I would highly encourage non-Christians to deal with this issue, instead of ignoring its implications and believing the lie that says, “All religions are true.”

---

D.H. Leonard is a junior in journalism and mass communication from Urbandale.