Fundamentalist religions claiming to be the “one true” religion usually say that everyone else is wrong. What is interesting though, is that they themselves are vulnerable to the exact same logic from opposing fundamentalists.
It all ends with a lot of name calling, and maybe a war.
Or people back off and let others be – withdrawing their high and mighty claims to monotheistic supremacy. Hey you pray to your god, I’ll pray to mine, or heck – I maybe won’t pray at all. Its all cool. That’s called pluralism and that is my belief system. And I’m pretty fundamentalist about it.
I’m fundamentalist about being free from the impositions of religious fundamentalists. But hey – aren’t I contradicting myself, since I am imposing my own brand of fundamentalism too?
You might have heard about similar complaints from fundamentalists – that the west “imposes” its values on the rest of the world. Imposing democracy.
View larger image.
or
No single religion is true.rtnl (download the Rationale file and view it yourself)
But democratic pluralistic fundamentalism is different to regular forms of fundamentalism in that it IS truly true. Because it is a special, meta-position, and meta positions are usually superior in that they are insightful breakthrough visions of how something works. It is the only position that escapes the fundamentalist paradox – which is basically the problem that each fundamentalists religion is always inevitably false according to some other religion’s point of view. How does it escape the paradox? Because it claims to be true not by virtue of being first amongst equals, but because all the equals are squabbling and someone has to step in and tell them all to grow up and get along. So furthermore, in this way, democratic pluralistic fundamentalism is the only perspective which respects people’s right to choose and is in the final analysis, the only practical position we can each adopt without killing each other off.
Lets look at the fundamentalist paradox more closely.
Either one fundamentalist religion is true and the rest are false. Or they are all false. They cannot be all true at the same time – not in the strict sense in which they want to be true.
So which choice do we make? Well, a single religion cannot be true because that would dismiss the serious content and sincerity of faith found in those other religions and ways of life. Such a dismissal is disrespectful and only antagonises people. But more importantly, and what lies at the heart of the matter, is that such a dismissal can just as easily be made by others against you. And there lies the paradox. In the absense of some overwhelming meta authority which is accepted by all side (which never exists in these sorts of non scientific religious matters) – noone can be right.
The democratic pluralistic “no religion is right” argument I am proposing is true both logically (because of its meta status and its avoidance of the paradox), practically(we live in peace) and morally (we respect the beliefs of others, as long as they don’t impose them on us). And yes, it is ironic that I am claiming to have the true point of view. And ironically I am claiming that all religions that claim to be the one truth, are false. Thus I am a fundamentalist of sorts.
How my argument differs and escapes defeat, however, is that my argument escapes the context of earthly debate and is operating on a meta level where the patterns of argumentation of fundamentalists are being shown to be self defeating.
It celebrates the truth of “nothing is certain except change itself”. The only certainty is the acknowledgement of uncertainty (in a non scientific realm). This is how you can have one true statement that itself rallies against fundamentalist truth. Pluralism has both a logical meta status and a forgivingness for difference that makes it the one true faith. Ironic. And it fits with moral credo that say – you can do anything except hurt others. Do unto others…
-Andy