ARE ALL RELIGIONS EQUALLY GOOD?

"Different religions are right for different people."  "Whatever works for your is right for you."  "All religions are a way of getting to the truth, and no one way is more right than the others."

Sound familiar?  Probably you've heard these statements before. Possibly you've made them yourself -- or you may have made some similar but less drastic claim, like "It doesn't matter what denomination you are; all that's important is your relationship with Christ." 

Does it really matter what religion we are?  Are all religions just a route to the same truth?  Let's look and see.

I. Contradictory Doctrines, Contradictory Realities

Perhaps the first thing to establish is that all religions do NOT say the same thing.  Some religions state that there is one God Who created everything else that exists, and Who is a person, not just a personality-less force.   This is a logical contrast to any religions which believe in multiple gods, or which believe in equal good and evil forces, or which believe in a "Force" that is just a life-force without a personality.  The God as described in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam may to some degree resemble the "Life Force" idea, but there is a rather large difference.  God, to the people of these faiths, is not an It. God is a person.

The divinity of Christ provides another, even clearer example of doctrinal divergence.  Christianity is built on the foundation of Judaism.  Christians and Jews share some beliefs about God.  They even share the collection of books known by Christians as the Old Testament. But Christianity and Judaism part company when it comes to the case of a carpenter who lived in Palestine 2000 years ago.  Christians say that He was God incarnate; Jews and Muslems deny this.  It is not possible for both the Jews and the Christians to be right about this.  Either Jesus was God --the second person of the Trinity-- or He was not. 

The fact is, different religions do make different claims about reality.  Sometimes, it is true, apparent differences in religion may be different ways of saying the same thing.  But not always.  Are you with me so far?

Let us presume that there is a real world out there.  Things do not float about randomly in time and space:  Florida is south of New York.  George Washington really was the first president of the United States of America.   A geography which placed Florida north of New York does not conform to reality; a history which puts George Washington third in the list of presidents does not conform to reality either. Therefore, the better geography is the one which has Florida in the right place.  The better history is the one which has George Washington in the right time and position.

Now, let's see what this means in terms of the question of whether one religion is better than another.  Let us take the case of the divinity of Christ.  Either Christ is divine, or not; only one reality is possible.  Suppose that Christ is NOT divine.  Suppose He was not "He" but just "he", a man, a wise man or prophet, a teacher and an ethicist, but not God.  If this is reality, then the religions which most conform to reality are those which deny the divinity of Christ.   These religions would be, in this respect at least, more true than Christianity.

Many people would agree with me as far as the question of Christianity goes.  There are Christians who believe that belief in Christ is a very important matter, that it is better to be a Christian than not, but who do not believe that denominational differences really matter.   However, if we are considering religions based on the degree to which their doctrines conform to reality, such differences do still matter.  A religion which teaches that Christ is God, but that Mary was not the Mother of God, is not logically identical to a religion which proclaims Mary "theotokos", Godbearer.  If Mary is indeed the "theotokos", the Mother of God, then a religion which denies this is wrong.  If Christ is really present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the sacrament of The Eucharist, then it is not true that the Host is just a piece of bread, and a religion which states that it remains bread is wrong. 

Even within mainline Protestantism, there are some doctrinal differences that people may tend to gloss over.  For instance, Presbyterians and Methodists practice infant baptism.  Southern Baptists do not.  If the Southern Baptist believes about the purpose of baptism are correct, then the Methodists and Presbyterian beliefs about baptism cannot be correct, or not completely correct.  If the Southern Baptists are right about this, their faith is, in this respect at least, more true.  It is better.

II. Different Claims, Different Promises

At this point, some people may say "So what?  What does a little difference in opinion matter? "  The question of infant baptism, for instance, may seem a minor issue. (Then again, it may not!)  But the issue of baptism in general is a complicated one that is connected with fundamental issues about the way God works in the world.  And what one believes about the way God works may have serious consequences as to what one believes is necessary to receive eternal life.  In other words, different religions believe that God wants different things from us. 

Some Christians, for instance, believe that salvation comes as a once in a lifetime experience.  You accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, you ask forgiveness for your sins, and He in turn justifies you.  For some Christians, this one act of justification lasts a whole life time.  An individual may sin again, but they are already covered, so to speak.  And some Christians believe that if you have been truly saved, you cannot lose that salvation, no matter what you do. 

This belief is in contrast to the traditions of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, which tend to view salvation as a process that lasts a lifetime. A person can lose their justification through serious sin, according to this view.

Now, there is a rather large practical difference between these two different approaches.  If "once saved always saved" is true, one who has accepted Christ into their heart can be sure that no matter what they do or think, they will go to heaven.  With the other view, one is always aware that salvation is a gift that might be lost through sin.

Even within Christianity, different denominations have different ideas about how we receive eternal life.  And outside of Christianity, the differences are even larger.  I have chosen the issue of salvation, because it is a fundamental issue.  In fact, it might be said to be THE most important issue in the question of whether all religions are equal.  "What does it profit a man to gain the world if he shall lose his soul?" What good does it do to gain peace of mind, a warm community, or an enriching faith if one should not be saved?

Now, belief in one religion does not always mean believing that people of all other religions are not going to be saved.  But eternal life isn't something to gamble with.  Whatever religion we choose, we should be confident that it can lead us to eternal life, because all else is worthless without that life.

III. Different Morals

One of the things we look to from  a religion is a source of ethics.  A religon tells us what God is, and what God wants of us. It doesn't just us what the universe is like, it tells us how to live in it.  So if we want to live rightly, the way humans are supposed to live, the question of which religion we pick is very important. 

There were some ethics which seem to transcend religious boundaries.  The basic principle of "Do unto others what you would have others do to you" is found in many religions.  The Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian tradition are followed by billions of people world-wide, and even those outside that tradition may see them as worthy ethical guidelines. 

But there are other areas where religions differ greatly in what they say is right.   Many Christians, in following the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", believe this prohibits abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.  Others say that it applies only to the murder of unconsenting adults or children past a certain age. (Some ethicists press for the legalization of the euthanasia of mentally disadvantaged children, and it can be argued that this is a logical extension of the legalization of abortion, but that is an argument for another webpage.) But this is not a question for philosophical chat. If abortion is wrong, then our society is allowing a great evil.  If abortion is not wrong, then those who impede abortions are wrong. 

Here is an area where different religions can have drastically different effects on a person's life.  Different religions say different things about what is or is not morally permissable.  Different religions make different demands, not just in the way we worship, but in the way we relate to other people, and even the way we think.  In traditional Christianity, for instance, an action or attitude doesn't have to hurt others to be sinful.  It just has to be contrary to God's will for us.  Thus actions such as pre-marital sex between consenting adults, which may not have an obvious victim, can still be considered sinful.   Other religions have different demands: some saying that the only over-riding ethic is "An it harm none, do what thou will."  As you can see, there is a difference between this belief and the belief that God may demand a certain right behavior beyond "do no harm to others."  If Christianity is right, the concept of "evil" is not limited to harming others, but contains everything that is against God's will.  So different religions can have very different ideas about whether a given action is evil. 

Most people would agree that we should all try to make the world a better place, or at least try not to damage it!  But different religions have different ideas about what will and won't make the world a better place.  It is not true, then, that one religion is the same as another.   Devout people of differing faiths may occasionally find themselves fighting on opposite sides of the fence because of doctrinal differences in their religion. If our overall goal is to improve ourselves and the world around us, then we must first decide which religion's view of the way we ought to be, and the way the world ought to be, is correct.  It is not possible to progress without having definable goals. 

IV. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!

If there are things which are inherently, objectively true, then it is NOT true that "whichever religion fits your needs is right for you."  And I think we can agree that some things are objectively true.  Most people agree, for instance, in the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."   That is held to be true for all. If that can be morally true for everyone, why can't other moral truths apply to everyone?

Most of us agree that New York is north of Florida, no matter what one's personal feelings about New York and Florida are.  If that is true regardless of emotions, then surely the existence of God is either true or false regardless of how one feels about it.   I may believe God to be a pink slug who dwells in Greenland, but if this is not true, then my belief is wrong, no matter how strongly I hold it. I may found a religion called "Sluggicity" based on this belief.  My religion may change people's lives for the better and do much charitable work -- but if God is not a pink slug, my religion is still wrong.  Religion is not entirely or even primarily subjective.  If a thing is true, it is true whether I feel it to be true or not.

Therefore, when evaluating a religion, we should not ask only "how does this make me feel?"  but we should ask "Is this true?".   With the truth as our goal, we can see that religious indifference is not acceptable.  All religions are NOT equally valid because they cannot possibly bear the same relationship to the truth.  That does not mean that religious tolerance is unacceptable!  We allow others the freedom of worshipping as they believe is right.  That does not mean that we have to agree with them.  It does mean that when we disagree with them, we should do so civilly.  For the Christian, it means even more: when we disagree with others, we must do so lovingly, because that is what we believe God has asked of us.