Contradiction: It's the Law!

If you find this picture upsetting, untrue or even the dreaded "intolerant," then I would encourage you to keep reading. Before you do though, it might be a good time to stop and ask yourself why it's offensive to you (or if)? Please realize that the intent of the picture is not to offend, but merely to illustrate a point. The main point here is that in our culture's attempt to not upset anyone, we've distorted certain notions about religion and spirituality so that all religions are seen as equally viable and any criticism is seen as bigoted or oppressive. The simple fact of the matter, however, is that not all religions are true. In fact, the truth even goes beyond that. The simpler fact of the matter is that all religions can't be true. If one continues to assert such a claim, we would not only be inconsistent within our own worldview, but we would be trying to violate one of the basic laws of logic, the law of non-contradiction.

What is the law of contradiction?
The law of non-contradiction is one of Aristotle's Laws of Logic. These laws are the Law of Identity, Law of Non-Contradiction and Law of Excluded Middle. Don't let the long titles intimidate you. These are actually things that you use everyday and probably don't give them much thought. In this post, I'll just focus on the second law, that of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction stated simply is that "A" and "not A" cannot both be true at the same time, in the same manner. To make it more clear, just pick some random proposition or state of affairs to fill in for "A." For example: "The universe is expanding" and "The universe is not expanding" cannot be simultaneously accurate. Either the universe is expanding, or it's not. We can disagree and debate on which we think is true, but it wouldn't make any sense to try and assert both. This is a foundational concept to how we think and is an example of what's known as a First Principle. In fact, this law is so inescapable, that you would have to use the law in order to discredit it. To deny the law of non-contradiction, you would have to state that the law is false, which is to say that it's not true rather than true (not A rather than A), which is itself an exemplification of the law and therefore circular...       Is you're head spinning yet?

Why can't they all be true?
So, what does all this have to do with religion? Well, first, I think it would help to get away from the term "religion," as it comes with a certain amount of cultural baggage all on it's own. At the heart of every religion, is a worldview that seeks to describe the metaphysics of what our world is like, so this may actually be a better place to start from. If you're unfamiliar with worldview philosophies, check out my previous post here. From this point, it becomes simple. Simply identify the claims of a particular religion (worldview) and then see if they violate the law of non-contradiction. If these claims differ, then we know that they can't both be true. This works in widely general claims, such as "does God exist?," which would be a shared claim of the great monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) but rejected by Buddhism, Jainism and Atheistic beliefs. It shows up best however in the specific claims of each worldview, such as Jesus' claim to be "the way, the truth and the life." and the sole path to reconciliation with God. John 14:6 Since no other religion makes this claim, we know that it's either true, or false. Again we can debate over which one it is, but one thing that we can be certain of is that it cannot be both true and false. Every worldview and religion in the world makes a claim to have the truth. What the second law of logic tells us is that every such claim axiomatically excludes everything else. For this reason, every religion cannot be true and in fact, denies all others in the process. In doing so, our modern notion of "tolerance" becomes not only impractical, but impossible on a fundamental basis.

What becomes of tolerance?
So how should we as rational human beings strive to coexist in light of this fact? Our current culture wants to define tolerance as "respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. 1 " While this may seem noble and understanding, because of our logical first principles it can't actually be lived out. This manner of definition essentially dictates that we cannot critique any religious worldview or even claim it as false. The twist here is that this type of tolerance becomes a narrow method of universal acceptance and any dissent is immediately seen as wrong and highly criticized. See the law of non-contradiction at work? Our culture's current view of tolerance ironically becomes the most intolerant view of all. So, how can we then be tolerant towards our fellow human beings? I suggest we go back to what was until very recently, accepted as the traditional view of the term. That being a fundamental respect for an individual, despite a complete disagreement or criticism of their worldview (rather than respecting all worldviews at the expense of the person). This classical definition is still buried in how we use the term when under non-political contexts. For example, you only tolerate something if you disagree with. If you accept an opposing view, you're no longer tolerating it, but believing it.

There is a way to be respectful yet still firmly disagree in today's culture, but it's not by allowing or accepting any ideology as it comes down the road. All religions claim a particular view of the world, and therefore deny the truth of all others. Even the modern mantra of "coexist" and "tolerance"set themselves up as the only method of respect and oppose (often vehemently) any contradictory view. If you disagree with someone, realize that it's the worldview you're disagreeing with and don't attack the person who holds it. We should be able to analyze and critique a philosophy independent of the individual. In fact, if someone is running down a cliff on a belief system that could cause harm, true respect would be to try and help that person see the flaws of their worldview, rather than assuming a standpoint of "tolerance" and allowing them to continue. The law of non-contradiction will not allow an all-accepting notion of tolerance to exist. Therefore we are left with the fact that not only are all religions not the same, but it's impossible for them all to be true. If nothing else, I hope that recognizing this becomes a step in the right direction that opens the door to the discussion so that we can then determine which religion, if any, is correct. This engagement should therefore not be seen as intolerance, but a worthwhile attempt at discovering the inescapable truth.

1 - Tolerance.org, Tolerance definition on the about page.

Today's Recommendations

Recommended Reading
True for You, But Not for Me - Paul Copan
A good starter for christian Apologetics which spends a great deal at the beginning fleshing out the implications of our cultural notions of tolerance and relativism.

Recommended Listening
Refuting Religious Pluralism - Dr. Phil Fernandes
Sadly, I haven't actually listened to this yet, but it comes from a highly recommended site, Apologetics 315.

Recommended Research
Can My Truth Be Different from Yours? - Walk Good Blog 
Good article on truth and an application of the law of non-contradiction. 

Today's Challenge
 Over the next few weeks see how many times you can notice the law of non-contradiction being overlooked for the notion of tolerance. It happens more than you think. Think of some responses to point out what's contradictory, yet with gentleness and respect for the individual making the claim. Greg Koukl's Tactics would be a great resource if your having trouble with the conversational side of the issue.