Do All Paths
lead to the same
Destination?
INTRO
All paths lead to the same destination.
Everything is relative – including truth.
What is Truth
Truth.
Introduction
It is evident that we are living in a society that
has the sole goal of rejecting “Absolutism”
If there is one remaining absolute truth, it is
that there is no absolute truth.
Our society thrives on notions such as
pluralism, relativism, Tolerance
multiculturalism..etc.
Do All Paths Lead to the Same
Destination?
Is it possible that Buddhism, Christianity,
Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc. represent
differing, yet valid, paths to the same
destination?
In this section, we will briefly examine
arguments for f and against the claim that all
((religious)
g )ppaths lead to the same
destination.
Option One: All Paths Lead to
the Same Destination
Some claim that all religions represent
differing yet equally valid,
differing, valid, routes to the same
destination. Though each religion may choose
its own path
path, all paths converge at the top of
the same mountain.
Advocates of this position typically offer the
following argument in support of their point:
Option One: All Paths Lead to
the Same Destination
1. Th contrasting
The t ti claims
l i off different
diff t religions
li i suggestt
that no religion possesses the entire truth, but only
bits and pieces of itit.
Illustration
Imagine for example,
Imagine, example that three blind men are touching
an elephant.
The first blind man is holding on to the elephant's
elephant s leg. He
says, "I think an elephant is like the trunk of a great tree."
The second blind man disagrees. "No, I believe an
elephant is like a snake
snake," he says while holding the
elephant's trunk.
The third blind man responds, "No, you both are wrong, an
elephant is like a wall." (He is touching the elephant's
side.)
Option One: All Paths Lead to
the Same Destination
Each blind man thinks he is right and that
the others are wrong even though all three
of them are all touching
g the same elephant.
elephant
p .
In a similar way,
y is it not p
possible that all
religions are in contact with the same
ultimate reality and merely describe it in
different ways?
Refutation – Inconsistencies
Each religion makes claims which contradict the claims of other
religions.
Let’s examine some areas of contradictions:
contradictions:
The Bible centers on Christ's death on the cross and
resurrection, the Koran denies Christ's crucifixion as
well as his Divinity and, in fact, proclaims the Christian
teaching of the Trinity to be an abomination
abomination.
Muslims claim that there is only one God,
God, Allah, who
created the universe from nothing
nothing. Some Hindus,
Hindus on
the other hand, do not believe in a personal creator,
but in Brahman
Brahman,, an impersonal absolute reality which
permeates all things. Other Hindus believe that there
are millions of deities (such as Brahma, Vishnu,
Shiva and Krishna) which are manifestations of
Shiva,
Brahman.
Refutation – Inconsistencies
According to Christianity, each of us will die
and be judged by Christ depending on this
judgment we will spend eternity in heaven or
hell In contrast
hell. contrast, many Hindus claim that we
will live (and have already lived) many lives on
earth.
earth
th. Hindus
Hi d b believe
li th
thatt th
the conditions
diti off our
past and future existence are determined by
the cosmic laws of karma. Following death
each of us is reincarnated into a different form.
Refutation – Inconsistencies
These conflicts render implausible the
claim that "all p
paths lead to the same
destination."
Mutually exclusive or contradictory
statements cannot be true at the same
time. - Aristotle
Refutation – Inconsistencies
It will be helpful at this point to return to the parable of
th th
the three bli
blind
d men and d the
th elephant.
l h t
As appealing as this story is, it leaves one important
question unanswered: How do we know the blind
men were all describing g the same elephant?
p
What if the first blind man, while holding an oak tree
said "I think an elephant is like the trunk of a great
said,
tree." Imagine the second blind man, while holding a
fire hose exclaimed
exclaimed, "NoNo, you
you're
re wrong; an elephant is
like a snake." What if the third blind man, while
touching the side of the Sears Tower asserted, "II think
you are both wrong; an elephant is like a great wall."
Refutation – Inconsistencies
The critical problem with this story is that it assumes the
very thing it allegedly proves-
proves-that all the blind men are
touching an elephant. Yet how do we know the blind
men are touching an elephant? Only because the story
assumes it.
To take it a step further,
further what if each of the blind men
made assertions about an (alleged) elephant which were
not merely different, but contradictory? Would it still be
plausible to believe they are all describing the same
elephant?
In light of the conflicting truth-
truth-claims of various
religions it does not seem rational to believe that all
paths
th lead
l d tot the
th same destination.
d ti ti
Option Two: All Paths Do Not
L d tto the
Lead th Same
S Destination
D ti ti
The founders of many religions made claims
which they knew contradicted the claims of other
religions.
religions
The Buddha, for example, rejected Hindu belief
regarding
di ththe cause off samsara (the
(th endless
dl cycle
l off
birth, death and rebirth).
Muhammad, the founder of Islam, rejected the belief of
the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. (he called it imaginary)
Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, claimed, "I am
the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the
f th but
father b t through
th h me.""
Option Two: All Paths Do Not
L d tto the
Lead th Same
S Destination
D ti ti
The philosopher from India
India, Ravi Zacharias
Zacharias, said that
those who say “All religions teach the same thing
don’tt know religion
don religion”.
the British poet and journalist Steve Turner wrote a
poem called
ll d “C
“Creed”
d” which
hi h comments t on modern
d
Western religious thinking. Part of the poem says:
We believe that all religions are basically the same.
They all believe in love and goodness
goodness.
They only differ on matters of
Creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
Our Responsibility
If all paths do not lead to the same destination
then each of us must make an informed choice
which may have significant consequences.
consequences.
If I am to be intellectually honest
honest, I must believe
that the answer to the question we raised at the
beginning of the discussion is NO (all paths do
not lead to the same destination).
Consequently it is our responsibility to examine
the paths before us and make an informed
choice.
Moral Relativism
Definition:
Relativism states that all truths are equal and
th t what
that h t is
i true
t for
f one person isi nott
necessarily true for another.
It is the belief that there are no objective
moral values that transcend culture or the
individual.
Truth is a personal preference; what's true is
what works for you. This may be “true for you
but not for me”
Areas of Inconsistencies
Unlivable and Unworkable
Moral Relativism is p
practically
y unworkable.
We simply can’t live without a belief—
belief—explicit
assumed—that moral standards exist….
or assumed—
Moral Relativist story
Areas of Inconsistencies
Unlivable and Unworkable
People are not by nature relativists in their
everyday beliefs and practices
practices.
Only when it comes to religion and morality that
people invoke relativism
relativism.
We don't hear people claiming that mutually
exclusive statements are true when it comes to
the stock market.
Wh should
Why h ld the
h morall relativist
l i i complain
l i if
someone took a hammer to his BMW?
Areas of Inconsistencies
Self Refuting and Self
Contradictory
If truth is indeed relative, then so is the
statement that truth is relative
Relativism claim, "There are no absolute
truths".
t th " Isn’t
I ’t this
thi self-
selflf-contradictory?
t di t ?
Those who argueg that 'there is no truth' are
putting forth that statement as true."
Areas of Inconsistencies
Self Refuting and Self Contradictory
The claims of relativists are like saying, “I can’t speak a
word of English”
English Our most basic reply to the relativist is
that his statement is self-
self-contradictory.
To be consistent
consistent, the relativist must say,
say “Nothing
Nothing is
objectively true—
true—including my own relativistic position.
So you are free to accept my view or reject it.”
it.
Of course, usually when the relativist says, “Everything
is relative,”
relative, he expects his hearers to believe his
statement and adjust their lives accordingly.
What About “Tolerance”
Tolerance
Another shade of Relativism is the notion of
“Tolerance”. Relativistic individuals advocate
their relativistic ideologies under the realm of
“Tolerance”.
Tolerance is a buzz-
buzz-word of this day and
age. We are frequently reminded that we should
be tolerant of those with whom we
disagree.
g Who can argue
g with this?
Nevertheless, it is important that tolerance not be
confused with truthfulness
truthfulness.
What About “Tolerance”
Tolerance
Here are some questions to highlight the
shortcoming of this trend of Tolerance….
Kindly ask this question to those who believe in
“Tolerance”.
Do you believe in the pro
pro--life movement?
If they oppose by saying “no”, point out that their
lack tolerance.
If you are intolerant of someone who is
intolerant then you have violated your own
intolerant,
principle.
When are Pluralism & Relativism
appropriate?
Relativistic pluralism is appropriate only in matters of
taste, not in matters of truth.
In matters of truth, we are expected to search for it and
cling to it and live it.
But religious relativism is not only deceptive and
intolerant, it is also incoherent,
The real question is: "Which exclusive claim is really
true--
true --Islam,
Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, relativism, etc.?" And
that can only be determined by an investigation into the
evidence supporting the claims of each view.
TRUTH
Truth by definition is the way things really are, the true or
actual state of a matter.
matter
It is conformity with fact or reality.
For example, the sky is blue. While people may argue what
shade of blue the sky is, the statement remains true. For our
statements, in
i order
d to b be true, must conform
f to a reality
li that
h
lies outside each of us.
Compass
Truth exists outside of what anyone thinks about it.
Truth is independent. It’s not determined by you, or by me, by
our feelings,
g , or just
j because it works for us.
We need to know that no reality is contingent upon our view
of it.
TRUTH
You may say that as long as you just
believe something to be true, then it will be
true for
f you. But that is not rational either.
Just believingg something g does not make
it truth.
truth.
M belief
My b li f d
does nott establish
t bli h ttruth
th or d
destroy
t
truth. The key is what the truth is.
Consider the following Story:
TRUTH
Suppose that there is only a thin sheet of ice over Moscow
River but I believe that the ice will hold me so I will be able
River,
to cross the river. I begin walking across the river with
great faith in that ice. But I am believing a lie. No matter
how strong my belief, if I walk out there on thin ice, it will
break and I will drown. My faith in that ice will not establish
what I believe to be true
true, that the ice will hold me up
up.
Conversely, the person who walks on thick ice that covers
the river may have only a little faith but be able to walk on
the ice safely. It is not faith that creates the safety or a lack
of it. The issue is whether my faith is in the truth or in a lie,
th thick
the thi k ice
i or thin
thi ice.
i If my faith,
f ith even though
th h it iis small,
ll
is in the thick ice, I will experience the reality of a safe
walk.
And even though I may have great faith in the thin ice, I will
experience the reality of destruction.
TRUTH
Truth is true — even if no one knows itit.
Truth is true — even if no one admits it.
Truth is true — even if no one follows it.
The Exclusiveness of the Truth
Truth by definition is exclusive. Everything cannot be
true. If everything is true, then nothing is false. If nothing
is false then it would also be true to say everything is
false. We cannot have it both ways.
By embracing one thing, it excludes everything else.
If the Truth acknowledges one being as supreme lord,
then it will reject
j all other contenders for the throne. That
is the nature of truth.
This exclusive view of truth as is simply
p y not acceptable
p
to a world which prefers to invent its own comfortable
truths.
Concluding Remarks
The problem here is the fundamental attitude of the
human race: that we want to make the rules; we want to
create and design our own options; we want to dictate
our own terms
The premise of this world is that there is no God – If
there is no God, there is no Absolute Truth. If there is no
God, there is only the individual…. Each individual can,
then, make up his own truth. We want, if we may, to
construct our own reality. We don't want to be compelled
to submit to a reality that lies beyond us
Suggested Readings
Ni h l R
Nicholas Rescher,
h Moral
M l Ab Absolutes:
l t A
An E
Essayon th the N
Nature
t and
d
Rationale of Morality,
Morality, (New York: Peter Lang, 1989).
C. S. Lewis,, The Abolition of Man (New
( York: Macmillan,, 1947))
Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1984)
Philip E. Devine, Relativism, Nihilism, and God (Notre Dame:
University Press
Press, 1989)
Michael D. Beaty, ed., Christian Theism and the Problems of
Philosophy (Notre Dame: University Press, 1990)
Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1987)
James Rachels
Rachels, "A
A Critique of Ethical Relativism,
Relativism " in Philosophy:
The Quest for Truth, ed. Louis P. Pojman (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,
1989)
Ravi Zacharias, Jesus among other Gods
