Humanism's Relationship to Pluralism

There are a number of contemporary movements which hold to the same ideas as to their basic “foundation stones.” These are: pluralism, ecumenism, liberalism, and secular (atheistic or agnostic) humanism. All of these hold to—in more or less the same stringent form—relativism, agnosticism, misology (or logophobia), and “union-in-diversity.” It should be helpful to say at least just a bit about what each of these viewpoints actually mean.

“Relativism” is the opposite of absolutism. Absolutism holds that truth is objective—it is just what it is without regard to what anyone thinks about it. It is not merely subjective. According to absolutism, truth is not changed by someone’s drawing an opinion about it. In contrast to absolutism, relativism holds that truth is subjective. This means that whatever an individual thinks about anything is “true” for him even if it is not true for any one else (whatever such a nonsensical idea can mean).

Relativism is actually a form of unbelief; it is a rejection of God and of His word. Yet, many professing Christians are relativists.

Agnosticism (at least unmitigated agnosticism) is also a self-contradictory position. It is the claim to know that no one knows—or even can know—anything at all. Obviously the claim to know that no one can know anything is self-contradictory. Since all self-contradictory statements are false, it is clear that agnosticism is a false position. Yet, many professed Christians today are agnostics. They even deny the words of Jesus in John 8:32.

Literally, “misology” means the hatred of logic. More practically, misologists are people who deny that the principles of valid reasoning are of value to the problem of accurately interpreting the Bible. (A very similar word is “logophobia” which means literally, “the fear of logic,” but which, for our purposes here, can be regarded as a synonym of misology). But, of course, to reject logic is to become a devotee of irrationality, which denies that, in the interpretation of the Bible, there is any meaningful connection between evidence and conclusion. But, if it is indeed the case that there is no significant connection between evidence and conclusion, then the Bible (which is the explicit evidence which God has given to men) can serve no useful purpose to men. Thus, it is clear that the acceptance of misology constitutes a rejection of God as the infinite creator of the universe and of the Bible (God’s written revelation to man).

“Union-in-diversity” (often called “unity-in-diversity,” but this designation assigns to the position a standing which it does not truly deserve) refers to the position which contends that Christian unity (the unity for which Jesus prayed, John 17:20-21; cf. Ephesians 4:1-3; 1 Corinthians l:10-13) must be gained even at the expense of the truth (the gospel of Christ). However, this is a false position. Christian unity is based on the truth—not gained at the expense of the truth!

MY ASSIGNMENT

My assignment is to discuss, “Humanism’s Relationship To Pluralism.” To meet this obligation, I plan to: (l) set out what pluralism is and at least some of its results, (2) give a very brief look at what humanism is, including showing that humanism is actually a form of pluralism, and (3) show how Jesus shattered any and all claims to legitimacy (as to truth) which either humanism or pluralism may make.

PART I—PLURALISM

In explaining what “pluralism” is, I shall use some excerpts from an article by Dennis B. Quinn, professor at the University of Kansas in Lawrence .

Quinn affirms that veritas (truth) is now regarded by “large numbers of American academicians” (3) as an obsolete term. Quinn attributes this view of truth “not only to prevailing skepticism but more particularly to a naive philosophical pluralism, that, without anyone quite noticing it, has become the monopolistic orthodoxy of academia” (3).

Quinn further points out the continued process (in our schools) of presenting “both sides” (without showing how to determine which “side” is really the truth. Quinn well says that a “steady diet of this produces, of course insipid neutrality (the mind open at both ends) of contentiousness for its own sake or simple hypocrisy; and ultimately it produces pious stereotyped pluralists who know there is no ‘truth’” (3). Thus, according to Quinn, the pluralists claim to know that which simply cannot be known (viz., that there is no truth).

Quinn calls attention to the fact that he and two other professors interviewed “about 600 high school graduates who had expressed interest in an integrated humanities program dealing with the ‘great books’ of Western civilization” (4). He points out that he and his two colleagues were unable to find even one student who unreservedly agreed with them that there is such a thing as truth and that truth can be known. Think of it: out of the 600 students (who had finished high school) whom those professors interviewed, not even one said that he/she believed that there is such a thing as truth or that truth can be known! Sadly, there are many, many preachers in the Lord’s church today who give the same answers!

He went on to say that pluralism, in contradiction to what it is supposed to do (promote controversy and clash of ideas—in other words, open and fair debate), has actually “tended to stifle real debate in the university” (4). Quinn goes on to point out the truth that, “if all people have their own ‘truths’ and if all ideas are equally valid [Quinn should have said ‘true’ instead of ‘valid’], why bother to quarrel?” (4). In other words, if no propositions are really true, and if no propositions are really false, and if it is really impossible for any proposition to be either true or false, then (among other crucial matters) (l) there can be no value whatever to preaching the gospel, (2) there can be no value to defending the gospel, and (3) no one can be saved by the gospel of Christ because no one could ever even know what it is. Think of what a monstrous doctrine this is!

It contradicts the plain statement of Jesus when He said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Further, it contradicts the implications of 2 Peter 2:20-22 and Hebrews 10:26. Religious liberals, philosophical existentialists, agnostics, ecumenists, pluralists, and many humanists at least generally—say either that there is no truth or, if there is any such thing as truth, no one can ever come to know what it is.

Quinn further points out that such “intellectual quarrels as do occur in academe are restricted by the unwritten code of pluralism” (4). He notes that, with pluralists, “It is just not good form to raise the big questions” (4). He points out that, with pluralists, “Moral issues evaporate in gaseous rap-sessions; the significance of Keats or Kant or Christ is mooted in excruciating consideration of how variously they have been interpreted” (4). In other words, the learning of truth is not the goal of academic (or “scholarly”) pursuits. Oh, no, it isn’t the gaining of truth—it is the unending discussion of various viewpoints—with all discussions ending with “open-endedness.” But, it must be pointed out that the pluralists tacitly contradict themselves. How? By implying that it is true that in searching for a mere exchange of “open-ended” ideas—with no one ever coming to the point that he can say, with confidence, “This proposition is true, and that proposition is false” the search is absolutely useless. It is indeed strange that men who have the intelligence to earn the highest academic degree from our most prestigious universities would be so dull as to not see the stupidity of such. It is clear that for the pluralist to say that Mr. Smith is “openminded” (in such fashion as to be commended by the pluralist) is to say that Mr. Smith is “open” to possibly accept anything except the truth! Every pluralist should be pressed to answer the question, “Is the doctrine of pluralism a true doctrine?” If he answers, “Yes, it is true,” then he contradicts his own theory of pluralism. On the other hand, if he answers, “No, it is not true,” then he thereby gives an open admission that pluralism is false and, thus, should be rejected by all men!

Since all of these other doctrines which I have been discussing at least tacitly accept pluralism, these two answers would be just as destructive to agnostics, liberals, existentialists, “union-in-diversity” advocates, and humanists.

In order to help one see the simplicity of what is involved with pluralism (which is espoused by humanists), I will take a few moments to point out some of the clever (deceptive) sayings which some pluralistic religionists have invented in order to evade their responsibility to both learn and obey the truth (John 6:45; 8:32; Hebrews 5:8-9; 2 Thessalonians l:7-9). (Some of these “sayings” have been discussed again and again in such journals as The Spiritual Sword.)

One of these devices is, “No one is really ‘smart’ enough to know what the Bible teaches about anything. To claim to be that ‘smart’ is to be guilty of arrogance and pride. Probability as to what is true is the best any of us can have. Therefore, each one of us must be humble enough to admit that he cannot know that he himself is right and that another person is wrong as to what the Bible teaches about a certain matter (or even about anything). In the face of the inability of any of us to really know what is true, we must all learn to ‘live and let live’ no matter how stringently we differ. God will save all people who do what their consciences urge them to do.” (It must be noted here that if the liberals who advocate the view just described are right in saying so, they would have to be wrong in claiming to know that it is true. No position as foolish as that is—or even can be (since it is self-contradictory)—a part of the gospel of Christ. I repeat: this “saying” is an abject contradiction of the plain teaching of Jesus who made clear (l) that it is at least possible for men to know the truth and (2) that to become free (from sins) one must know the truth (John 8:32; cf. Hebrews 10:26; 2 Peter 2:20-22; 1 Peter 1:22-25; Romans 1:15-17; Galatians 6:7-9; et al.).

As for myself, I claim to know at least some things—things which are vital to salvation from sins. I will not take the time here to prove that I know these. Rather, I will merely list them. For example, I know that God does exist (cf. Genesis 1:1; Romans 1:18-32). I know that the Bible is the word of God (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17; et al.). I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (John 20:30-31). I know that, to be saved, men must believe the gospel (Mark 16:15-16). I know that, to be saved, men must obey the gospel (Mark 16: 15-16; Hebrews 5:8-9; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; et al.). I know that, to be saved, men must believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God (John 8:24; 20:30-31). I know that, for men to be saved, they must repent of their sins (Luke 13:3-5; Acts 2:38; 3:19 [cf. 3:17-26]; 2 Peter 3:9). I know that, for men to be saved, they must confess Jesus (Matthew 10:32-33; Romans 10:9-10). I know that, for men to be saved, they must—as penitent believers in Jesus Christ as the Son of God—be baptized (immersed in water) in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of their sins. I know that, to be saved, those who are Christians must be faithful (unto Christ) even unto death (Revelation 2:10; Luke 14:26; 2 Peter 1:5-11, 2 Peter 2:20-22; et al.). I know that being faithful unto death entails living a life of doing what Christ (through His word) has authorized men to do (2 John 9-11; Colossians 3:17; et al.). I know that the Bible teaches that some things are obligatory (and thus, to be saved, men must do them; see Scriptures cited above). I also know that some things are optional (and, thus, no man must seek to force other men to treat them as if they were obligatory.

Some people seem constantly ready to add (to almost any point which they make while preaching) a statement such as this, “But, of course, since I am not infallible, I just might be wrong. So, I hold every position which I ‘hold’ in a tentative way.” In response to this “disclaimer,” I point out that, of course, the Bible condemns pride, arrogance, haughtiness, and an “I know everything attitude.” But speaking for myself (see my editorials in The Spiritual Sword which either directly or indirectly deal with this problem—see especially my editorial on “Ecumenism” in the July, 1988, issue of that journal), I want to say as plainly as I can say it that I do not know of even one person who claims to know either everything or nothing.

If I am correct in the above analysis, then it seems that there is at least one sense in which we are all “in the same boat”—namely, we all claim to know at least something but none of us claims to know nothing. (Again, I suggest the reading of my editorial on “Ecumenism” in the July, 1988, The Spiritual Sword.) If I am right, then given the “chart” below (which appeared on page 1 in my editorial to which I referred just above), it seems certain that all of us would check “box number 3” as the correct answer to the question. “What (or how much) do you know?”

l.  Everything

2. Nothing

3. Something (but not everything)

[I check point number 3, and I challenge any one to show that he has checked either number 1 (that he knows everything) or number 2 (that he knows nothing).]

As a matter of fact, if (counterfactually) no one can know that God exists, then it would follow that, for all anyone knows, God does not exist. And, if (counterfactually) God really does not exist, then everyone should reject Christianity, for the above (if granted) imply that Christianity is a false religion. This should give the pluralists among us more than a little “food for thought” in regard to their “union-in-diversity” doctrine which is wreaking such havoc in the Lord’s church today.

The liberals among us will no doubt cry out, “Warren, you are wrong about this point you have been trying to make. No man can really know anything.” In which case, my obvious response would be to ask, “Do you know that your charge (that I am wrong in claiming that Jesus taught that it is at least possible for some men to learn the truth) is true? If you claim such, then obviously you have involved yourself in self-contradiction.”

Please wake up and let us work together to preach and spread the gospel and not some false philosophy! If you are right, then men can be saved without faith in Jesus Christ! It is clear that even the radical skeptic (pluralist or otherwise) assumes (tacitly claims—perhaps I should say) that there is at least one truth and that truth can be known by men—namely, his own skepticism (that is, his own proposition which says, “no one can know anything”). But this involves the skeptic in affirming a logical contradiction. So, since every contradiction affirms any and every conceivable proposition, it follows that the skeptic (in this case, the pluralist) has implicitly affirmed that the proposition which he himself affirms is false.

If, as skeptics affirm, “man is the measure of all things,” then each person decides for himself what is true and his having decided that, say, Proposition A is true, makes Proposition A true for him (even if it is false for every one else).

If this affirmation is true, then if Mr. Smith affirms the proposition, “Jesus of Nazareth was not the Son of God but was a liar and an imposter, so no man will be lost just because he does not believe in Jesus,” then—for Mr. Smith at least—it is true that Jesus was not the Son of God. Do our liberal brethren realize that they are implicitly affirming this Christ-denying doctrine?

What all of the foregoing material (on pluralism) amounts to can be well summed up in this way: men should quit searching for knowledge (having such certainty in regard to a particular proposition as to be beyond the possibility of being wrong about it) and be concerned only about their own viewpoints (opinions). Each man should concern himself only with the way things seem (appear) to him and grant the same situation (privilege?) to all other men; realizing that no one can really come to knowledge about anything.

This writer challenges the reader to note that quite a number at least implicitly affirm the old pluralistic doctrine of Protagoras (born around 500 BC); namely, that “man is the measure of all things.” This doctrine is taught with some regularity by people who claim to be providing the Lord’s church with people who are well grounded in the teaching of the New Testament. Such action is terribly inconsistent.

It seems clear that people who believe and teach this doctrine of pluralism very readily regard themselves as humble, kind, anti-Pharisaic, anti-dogmatic (in just the right sense), anti-legalistic, etc.—in short, some seem to regard themselves as holding just those views which Jesus would have them hold. But, at the same time (that is, while opposing the opposing of false doctrine), they very strongly criticize those who oppose their efforts to spread the doctrine of pluralism (manifested in their plea for “union-in-diversity.” They seem clearly to regard themselves as having just the right hold on grace (which, in their view, excludes any and all law—denying even that the gospel is the law of Christ, but see Romans 8:1-5) and works (denying that works in any sense have anything to do with salvation, but see James 2:24-26). They regard as arrogant and self-righteous men who uphold the fact that Jesus Himself taught that it is at least possible for men to know the truth (John 8:32). In spite of their oft-repeated claims of being Christians who love all men, they seem to be not the least hesitant to brand others by using such terms as “religious terrorists,” “journalistic terrorists,” “witch-hunters,” “full of pride and vanity and the desire to build a personal reputation” and so forth.

They strongly charge other brethren with thinking that their “own hermeneutic is infallible” while they (the liberals) themselves implicitly claim that their hermeneutic is infallible and that those who do not agree with them are dividing the church. They are clearly anti-knowledge and anti-logic. (Perhaps the liberals have adopted the motto, “I believe it because it is unreasonable.”) Coupling their agnosticism with their rejection of the correct role of logic, it is not hard to believe that such could be their battle cry.

PART II—HUMANISM
(A PHILOSOPHY OF PLURALISM)

In order to show something of the problem I quote from Professor Roger Hazelton, taken from his article on humanism: “Discussions of the term ‘Humanism’ usually begin with an apology for not defining it. Humanism has indeed undergone so many mutations in the history of western thought that precise definition of it is not expected” (157).

Of “Humanism,” W. L. Reese, said that the “doctrine of Protagoras, taking men as the measure, stands in contrast to various types of absolutism, especially of an epistemological nature” (235).

Thus, it is clear that humanism, according to Reese, is simply another pluralistic philosophy, holding that “truth” is relativistic—that is, that each man is the measure of all things: whatever each individual thinks is true is true, for him/her. (No doubt there are some humanists who would deny that they accept this view of truth and knowledge, but lack of space here precludes our considering all of the subtle nuances of what various “stripes” of humanists hold. For example, atheistic humanists hold that they know that God does not exist.)

For my purposes here, I will be referring to humanism which rejects philosophical (especially epistemological—that which pertains to knowledge) absolutism (that which pertains to what is objectively, not merely subjectively, true).

The espousal of pluralism (epistemological relativism) by humanists means that they simply must—if they are sincere about the matter—face up to giving an honest answer to this question: “If indeed it is the case (as pluralists say) that all truth is relative, how can it be ‘more true’ than the proposition which affirms that all truth is absolute (objective)?” For example, if Jones’ conclusion (that Proposition A is false) is just as true as Smith’s conclusion (that Proposition A is true), and if each and every man is the sole judge (actually maker) of what is true, then why would any person spend years and years (paying out thousands and thousands of dollars—while not making any dollars) studying in a university if (as pluralism implies) there is not one professor in that university who knows even one thing (certainly not even one thing more than the student knows)? We ask, “Why?” We challenge any pluralistic university professor to refute what is implied by the material just above. We repeat (in slightly different words), “Why should one complete ignoramus spend years studying under another complete ignoramus?” Is there not at least one pluralistic humanist (or religious liberal) who can—without equivocation—answer that question?

The truth of the matter is: Jesus was right—men can know the truth. I believe that deep down in the heart of each pluralist there is the conviction that he knows that he knows that such is the case. If it is the case, then our task is clear: study and learn the truth!

PART III—HOW JESUS SHATTERED THE CLAIMS
OF PLURALISM AND HUMANISM TO SET OUT
AN ADEQUATE VIEW OF TRUTH

We Repeat: on one occasion, Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Here Jesus plainly teaches: (l) that men can know the truth (His truth, the gospel of Christ) and (2) that truth (and only that truth is implied in Galatians 1:6-9) can make men free from their sins (when that truth is believed and obeyed, Hebrews 5:8-9; 2 Thessalonians l:7-9).

I turn now to some words of Jesus stated in His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:13-14).

l. Every accountable person is being “invited” by two inviters: (l) Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Matthew 11:28-30) or Satan, the devil (1 Peter 5:8; Matthew 16:23; Luke 22:31-32; Book of Job). There are no other inviters—for example, every preacher functions either as Christ’s inviter or as Satan’s inviter.

2. Every accountable person is listening to (in the sense of accepting and obeying) either the message of Jesus (i.e., the truth, the gospel of Christ, the faith, the doctrine of Christ, the word; John 8:32; Romans 1:15-17; Acts 13:12; Jude 3; Galatians 1:23; Mark 16:15-16; Galatians 1:6-9: 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; et al.) or the message of Satan (which says, “reject the truth”!).

There is no religious doctrine other than the truth or some false doctrine. Every precisely stated doctrine is either true or false. There is one—and only one—body of doctrine which is true. Every doctrine which contradicts that true doctrine is false (it doesn’t matter how many people believe and teach it—any and every doctrine which contradicts the gospel of Christ is false doctrine).

No doctrine other than the doctrine of Christ can save any person from sin (Galatians 1:6-9). Even if every person in the world cried out “This doctrine—which contradicts the gospel—is true because those of us who believe it are sincere in believing it,” false doctrine is still false! And, no matter how few people believe the gospel of Christ, that gospel is still true! And, it must be remembered, only the truth can save from sin (John 8:32; 2 Peter 2:20-22; Romans 1:15-17; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; et al.).

3. There is only one gate into the realm of being saved (Matthew 7:13-14). That gate is the narrow gate (being baptized—immersed—in water, as a penitent believer in Christ unto the remission of sins, in obedience to the gospel of Christ, John 3:1-5; 2 Timothy 2:10; Galatians 3:26-27; Acts 22:16; Mark 16:15-16). No one who is not baptized in the name of (by the authority of) Jesus Christ is a Christian (John 3:5; Acts 2:38).

4. There is one way (i.e. one way of life after becoming a Christian) which will lead to eternal salvation (Matthew 7:13-14). That way is the way of being faithful to Christ by obedience to His word (Revelation 2:10; 2 Timothy 2:3; 2 Peter 1:5-11; 2 John 9-11; Galatians 5:19-23; Ephesians 2:8-9; et al.).

There is no middle way—there is no way which is between the straitened way and the broad way. It is not a matter of relativism or a matter of subjectivism—it is a matter of absoluteness: one either is walking in the narrow way or in the broad way (Matthew 7:13-14).

5. At the final Judgment, every accountable person either will go away into eternal punishment or into eternal life (Matthew 25:46). This is a statement of absoluteness—not relativism. It will not be a matter of subjectivity but of objectivity. It will not be a matter of every man’s viewpoint (no matter how flagrantly it may contradict the gospel of Christ) being “true” (in the sense of resulting in eternal life). Of people who are accountable, only those who have both believed and obeyed the objective truth which is the gospel will go away “into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46; Romans 6:3-5; Revelation 2:10).

CONCLUSION

Pluralism is wrong—truth is both absolute and attainable. Since pluralism is wrong and humanism crucially involves pluralism, then it follows that (while we must love and seek to serve and save all human beings and, in that sense, be humanitarian), we must not be “humanists” in the sense in which the term has been used in the context of this essay. Only the truth (of Jesus Christ) can make men free from (forgiven of) their sins.

It is true, of course, that, according to the plain teaching of the Bible, that in matters of obligation, there must be unity if those involved are to be pleasing to God (cf. John 3:3-5), and that in matters of option there must be liberty (room for differences of viewpoint on optional matters, 1 Timothy 4:1-5) and, finally, in all things, there must be love (Ephesians 4:15; 1 Corinthians 13:17). (For a more detailed analysis of this matter, see my editorial in the July, 1985 The Spiritual Sword, pp. 39-42).

No man can be saved without loving the Lord (1 Corinthians 16:22). And no man who rejects the truth can love Christ. Jesus said, “If you love me, ye will keep my commandments” (John 14:14-15). Jesus went on to say that it is the one who keeps His commandments (obeys His truth) who loves Him (John 14:15). John said, “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments . . .”(1 John 5:3).

Thus, it should be concluded that the desire to submit to Christ is really just a willingness to obey His truth. It is simply preposterous to think that any man who knowingly rejects Christ’s truth really does love Him.

Works Cited:

Quinn, Dennis B. “Higher Education: The Pluralistic Monopoly.” The University Bookman. Ed. Russell Kirk. 28. 1 (1988).

 Hazelton, Roger. “Humanism and Humanitarianism.” Dictionary of Christian Ethcs. Ed. John MacQuarrie. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.

 Reese, W. L. “Humanism.” Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion. New Jersey: Humanities, 1980.