The famous poem written to illustrate what happens when six blind men try to describe the elephant that none of them have seen, has been used to describe religious pluralism. Religious pluralism is actually understood in at least two major ways. Sometimes the words are taken to refer to the fact that there are a plurality of religions in a society. This is unproblematic and everyone recognizes that this is the case. However, according to John Hick’s thesis, religious pluralism’s real significance is that all religions are simply different perspectives of the same reality. This second explanation is much more controversial and, although popular, has some significant problems.

One criticism of Hick is that different religions have contradictory truth claims about reality. Hick’s account reinterprets a religious belief when it cannot account for contradiction. Hick must blur the distinction between certain terms to equate them to such an extent that they are rendered completely different than what they mean to each of the world religions that use them.

Another criticism is that Hick overlooks the most important difference in the various religions what are the means to reach the end? Thus, when two religions claim one can have a relationship with God in different ways, Hick focuses instead on the ends that both share instead of the means by which to reach the end.

Finally, Hick’s analysis presupposes that he has access to the Reality everyone else only partially describes. Hick claims to be in the position that he can view reality as it really is in order to critique all the other religions. Thus, despite his denial, his description puts him in the place that he has the “point of view of someone who can observe both elephant and blind men.”

In conclusion, one can see the many areas where Hick’s account is implausible. On the positive side, Hick’s religious pluralism may try to promote tolerance between the different religious systems. Yet, although promoting tolerance is good, tolerance only makes sense if you think the other person’s view is false. I do not tolerate those that I agree with because there is nothing to tolerate. It is important to recognize that each religion holds to beliefs they think are true that others do not. Further, those who say all the contradictory beliefs are true make the very notion of truth meaningless. Thus, because Hick’s account rests on the fallacy of equivocation and cannot deal with the obvious areas of contradiction between different religious systems, one should reject his view.

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Public Interest Institute. They are brought to you in the interest of a better informed citizenry.