The recent letter from D.H. Leonard is a perfect illustration of how a little bit of logic can be a dangerous thing.

First, I can’t recall any letter to the Daily which has claimed that all religions are true. Rather, they have claimed that we should be open-minded in our views about religion. Despite Leonard’s poorly considered assertions to the contrary, the two are not synonymous.

It is stupidly obvious that all religions cannot be true. However, it is also obvious that we cannot come to an agreement about which religion is true.

Religious pluralism is not the claim that all religions are true. Rather, it is the recognition that since we don’t know WHICH religion is true, we must be tolerant and open-minded to those who disagree with us. This is a basic gesture of respect in a civil society.

What this means is that in deciding what legal and educational standards will apply to questions like the ethics of homosexuality, our debate must be a rational one that makes use of evidence.

If a Hindu said the Vedas praise homosexuality and then said that this was justification for legalizing homosexual marriage, you would scoff.

Yet, this is exactly the move arrogant Christians make when they quote from the Bible to justify laws which are discriminatory against homosexuals. Such gestures do not constitute intelligent public debate.

A couple of other points in Leonard’s letter must be addressed. All religions cannot be true because all religions claim to be the absolute truth. This does not in any way refute relativism. Leonard’s poor understanding of epistemology is revealed by his presentation of relativism, which he simplistically presented as the belief that “everything is relative.”

Although there are a number of different kinds of relativism, in general, relativism is the belief that truth can never be stripped of its context or perspective. For instance, perspectivism is the claim that truth must always originate from a perspective.

This does not erase categories of truth and falsity, but it does deny the possibility of there being an absolute truth. Needless to say, Mr. Leonard, there are many other versions of relativism, and none of them succumb to your clumsy attempt at exposing relativism’s reliance on absolute truth.

Finally, proving that all religions cannot be true does not by any means prove that any of the religions currently available to us ARE true. And it comes nowhere near to Leonard’s infantile leap from refuting the kind of pluralism he describes to embracing Christianity as the absolute truth.

Again, Mr. Leonard, logic must be used carefully, and the kind of word-algebra your letter attempted to make use of can only confuse the issues and embarrass you. Here I would suggest more faith and less rationalization; it is clear that your mind will only get you into trouble.

Thomas Jameson

Junior

Botany