- The existence and attributes of God
- The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all
- The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
- The truth of Catholic moral teaching
- The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II
The Problem of Many Religions
(The content of this post comes from many different sources, both in print and online. I take no credit for this post, except for condensing the material into a readable post and adding some light commentary. ---Introibo).
There exists a multiplicity of religions in the world. If there is only One True God, how could this be? Wouldn't God want His Revelation made know easily? There are three false conclusions that have arisen out of the fact that there is a multiplicity of religions: (1) positive indifferentism---the belief that all religions are equally good and lead to Heaven; (2) negative indifferentism---the belief that all religions are equally bad, and is subdivided into two divisions, (a) stay away from religion and be "spiritual," and (b) it is proof that God does not exist (argument used by atheists). It is this contention, negative indifferentism, that will be dealt with in this post, and how to respond to an atheist who uses said argument. There will also be a brief section against positive indifferentism.
Here is an extended elaboration of the argument from atheist philosopher Ben Watkins. He writes:
Our concept of a perfect being implies a concern for the religious content of our beliefs and the moral value of our characters and acts. But if we assume theism is true, then it seems as if God has inconsistently or inaccurately revealed what He wants us to believe and how He expects us to act. By contrast, if atheism is true, then there is no disembodied mind who cares about the content of our religious beliefs nor the moral worth of characters and acts. Widespread disagreement about the nature and significance of experiences which do not correspond to a shared objective reality is not surprising if atheism is true. I concluded facts about widespread religious disagreement count in favor of atheism and against theism. (See Ben Watkins, “Why I Am an Atheist,” https://capturingchristianity.com/ben-watkins-why-i-am-an-atheist).
Not only does this argument not disprove Christianity—the argument is fully accounted for by Christianity. In particular, the Traditionalist Catholic worldview provides resources to account for religious disagreement without abandoning theism. Here's how:
1. Multiple claims to truth do not imply that there is no truth. We can see this throughout history, for example in the history of science. Over the centuries, people had all sorts of theories to account for natural phenomena, but that variety of views did not mean there was no correct view in any case. You can introduce this point with an analogy and a question: “Does the existence of counterfeit money show there is no real money?” Your atheist discussion partner may answer “no” and then add something to press the objection further. That’s a good thing, and it allows you to see more of what he has in mind. He may argue something like this: “Yes, but if God reveals only one religion, he should do so clearly so that there would not be any other ones. The fact that there are so many religions shows that God did not adequately reveal Himself. So He probably doesn’t exist."
You can respond with further points enumerated below.
2. Widespread religious disagreement may be due in part to a widespread religious impulse within a fallible human race. Most human beings throughout history have believed in God in some sense. Since they believed in God, it’s not surprising that they attempted to find God and draw conclusions about him on their own. Being fallible, these conclusions were prone to error. Add to this that human beings are not only fallible (prone to error) but also vicious (prone to doing evil), and we can see how some would falsely claim divine revelation for their own gain. The objector might press that a good God should intervene to stop people from committing such hoaxes. This is a form of the Argument from Evil used by atheists, and I will do a separate post on it at a later date.
3. The fall of Adam and Eve, through which sin entered the world, is the root cause of our living in an imperfect world—complete with pain, suffering, disease, disasters, and yes, religious disagreement. Nonetheless, God has a rescue plan, according to Christianity, and the created order is in a state of “journeying” toward perfection. Religious disagreement in our world, then, can be explained by the choice of our first parents to turn away from God. It doesn’t disprove God’s existence or the truth of Christianity. Also, according to Christianity, it’s temporary. In heaven there will be no more religious disagreement.
4. According to the Catholic Church, God gives all men sufficient grace to be saved, but some freely choose to reject that grace. I think the biggest concern behind this argument is that some people won’t get a fair shake in life. Objectors may worry that, according to Christianity, those born into other religious traditions or those born at the wrong time and place will automatically be damned. Despite God’s permitting religious disagreement, he provides enough light to all men, such that if they respond to his grace, they can find salvation. This does not imply that all religions are equally salvific or that there is a plurality of paths to God. Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except by me” (St. John 14:6).
The Church has thrice infallibly defined:
Pope Innocent III Fourth Lateran Council (1215): There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302): Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.
However, God gives to all men, even those born into different religions, the chance to be saved. Some will follow grace to convert. Also, insofar as they may be saved by Baptism of Desire, they are saved through the grace of Jesus Christ and within His One True Church.
5. Willful and culpable ignorance also accounts for some measure of religious disagreement. Just as God allows us a great deal of latitude with respect to errors in what we do—even to the extent of moral breakdown at the level of entire societies, genocide and other atrocities, and so forth—so too does He allow us great leeway with respect to errors in what we think. According to the Catholic tradition, God has revealed himself through his creation and in ways that can be known by the natural light of human reason. Suppose someone learns this and comes across some evidence for God. For example, suppose a friend buys him a book on Catholic apologetics from the 1950s. If the person refuses even to look at the book and to consider any of the reasons to believe in God, then he chooses to remain ignorant about the topic.
Again, suppose the person is offered evidence for the resurrection of Jesus or some other miracle but refuses to consider it or investigate it. Once more, by his choice he remains ignorant of these motives for faith. Therefore, the wide latitude for error can include the free decisions of men who culpably refuse to examine the evidence honestly. To the extent that ignorance is culpable, only God knows for sure, but one cannot deny that willful ignorance accounts for some religious disagreement.
A Note about dealing with "All Religions are Equally Good"
I would be remiss if I didn't address the "I'm not religious just spiritual" nonsense, which gains adherents more and more. Someone will find out you're a Traditionalist and will say "That's nice. I'm spiritual, not religious. All religions are equally good." (This is positive indifferentism). If you ask this person why they believe that, the usual answer is that all religions teach the same things at their core, and as long as your religion "works for you" (i.e., makes you happy, a better person, etc.) then that's "your road to eternal bliss." For you, it's Traditionalist Catholicism, for others it's Hinduism, for others it's being "spiritual." In the end everyone is happy after this life regardless of what they believe as long as they were "good" (however they define that term).
So, what do you do if engaged in a conversation with such a person? Here are some suggestions:
1. Acknowledge that many religions teach similar things, but stress the fact that this does not mean that they teach the same things. God and Allah may be similar, but they are not identical.
2. Along the same line, explain that similarity in function does not imply sameness in nature. Two things may fulfill the same purpose, but they may still be different. You may play the French horn, while I play the banjo, and we may get similar satisfaction out of making music on our respective instruments, but that does not mean that we are both playing the same instrument or even two versions of one fundamental instrument.
3. Try to learn as much as you can about other religions. The contemporary mantra is that the more you learn about what other people believe, the more you will recognize that we all believe the same things. This is patently false, but you need to know what other religions believe before you can make that judgment with credibility. Please see my series on false religions entitled "When Strangers Come Knocking."
4. Avoid going out on a limb with what you say about other religions. Stick to those items of which you are certain, so that the conversation will not get side-tracked unnecessarily.
5. Keep in mind that the question of whether all religions teach the same things is different from the question of whether Christianity is uniquely true. In other words, to show that other religions are different from Christianity, you don’t have to show that other religions are false. The exclusive truth of Christianity is another important issue, but a different one.
Conclusion
We must be prepared for the challenge of indifferentism (used by both atheists and the "spiritual but not religious types) spurred on by unrestrained religious pluralism, in the age of "religious liberty" ushered in by Vatican II. If someone believes all religions lead to salvation, then he believes he has the correct perspective to the exclusion of all who think otherwise, whom he would consider wrong and (ironically) be intolerant of their belief. If someone thinks we can't know the truth about religion, he has made a truth claim. Ask, "how do you know that"?
Objective truth and objective morality exist, and it carries with it great implications for us. We must strive to live in accordance with them and defend our Holy Mother the Church whenever She is attacked.
