| ReadBibleAlive.com | |
| Series Theme: Apologetics | |
| Abbreviated
Contents:
|
Title: 3. Questions about Deceptive Ways of Thinking (Deceptive 'isms')
A series that helps consider the foundations for faith
Contents for Overview:
Introductory Comments • Setting the scene 1. What Relevance do Graves have to do with this? • Lessons from history 2. How should we deal with this Hypocrisy? • Facing consequences of presuppositions 3. How can Post-Modernism be Deception? • Definition & Assessment 4. Why is Relativism Deception? • Definition & Assessment 5. Why is Universalism Deception? • Definition & Assessment 6. Why is Naturalism Deception? • Definition & Assessment 7. Why is Pluralism Deception? • Definition & Assessment 8. Why is Multiculturalism Deception? • Definition & Assessment 9. Summary 10. Questions
Introductory Comments
On this page we will define the various ‘Isms' that society employs to deny the presence of God, to deny reality while pretending to hold certain beliefs that run counter to Christianity, but which people are unable to hold to. Because each one is a pretense, that is why we refer to them as 'deception'. Christians are familiar with deception because we see it is one of the main strategies of Satan which was first seen in the Garden of Eden when Eve was led astray.
We will start by observing how this is no new phenomena and see how Jesus confronted it regularly.
We will move on the make suggestions as to how to deal with it, and will then go through the most commonly found beliefs that Society says it has, yet denies in practice.
For this particular page, the work and writings of Dr. Francis Schaeffer are particularly helpful. Much of his work at L'Abri was helping students face the conclusions of their world views.
1. What Relevance do Graves have to do with this?
Answer:
In Jesus' day, one of the problems that he faced was that of religious hypocrisy. Now there is a sense whereby every single person on earth is a hypocrite and we need to understand that.
Our word ‘hypocrite' comes from the Greek word for ‘actor' and in the days of the ancient Greeks an actor wore a mask. An actor pretends to be someone else – and we all do this in some measure.
However, in Jesus day, one religious group called the Pharisees particularly sought to appear religious and focused all their thinking on outward behaviour.
On one occasion Jesus berated them:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness .” (Mt 23:27,28)
In other words they pretended to be one thing but in fact, on the inside were something completely different. They purported to be holy, spiritually good, but in fact they were no better in their internal struggles than anyone else. That's why Jesus likened them to painted graves which covered up death.
Jesus wanted them to face the truth about themselves, not what they just said.
In the Western world today we have many people and groups purporting to hold to particular ways of thinking, but when you examine both the beliefs and the practice you find they are wanting.
2. How should we deal with this Hypocrisy?
Answer:
What we are suggesting here is that each of these “ism's” that we are going to examine fall apart when you examine the theory itself and the lives lived by those who espouse the theory.
In his book, How Should We Then Live, Francis Schaeffer wrote:
“People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize. By presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic world-view, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists. People's presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth into the external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and therefore the basis for their decisions.”
Now we have considered presuppositions before. All Schaeffer was really saying was that we all have ways of thinking about the world, and depending on what we think, that's how we'll live. He continued later:
“Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society the way a child catches measles. But people with more understanding realise that their presuppositions should be chosen after careful consideration of what world view is true.”
In his book, The God who is There, Francis Schaeffer said:
“We ought not to try first to move a man away from the logical conclusion of his position but towards it... We should try to move him in the natural direction his presuppositions take him. We are pushing him towards the place where he ought to be, had he not stopped short.”
Here he suggests that, actually, if we look more carefully at these presuppositions we all have, we will find that people stop part way and don't live out the full logical conclusions of those presuppositions. So, all we have to do is encourage people to look more deeply at what they say they believe and gently encourage them to face what are the logical outcomes which they know deep down they don't go along with! If they have integrity they will then look afresh at all other possibilities. In another context, in Death in the City, Francis Schaeffer commented on men not living according to their presuppositions when he spoke of the way men - "through all kinds of strange and devious devices, to give hope for life after death. This we find a strange thing: men who are naturalists and yet seek seances with those who have died. In men like Ingmar Bergman we find a denial of the existence of God but a growing interest in demonology."
3. How can Post-Modernism be Deception?
Answer:
a) The definition stated
Post-modernism is a world view or collection of beliefs that a) rejected the optimism of modernism (19th & early 20th century beliefs in the goodness and positive evolution of man using the sciences and technology) and b) rejects ‘big-picture' answers to life, and c) rejects the idea that truth exists objectively, but says it is created within individual cultures.
Cultural relativism is an expression of post-modernism, saying that what is found to be true in one culture may be different or wrong in another culture.
Because Christianity is one of the ‘meta-narratives' (big story) rejected by post-modernism, which is optimistic and speaks about objective truth, it is important that we give some thought to this.
b) The falsity of the definition
Post modernism is an inadequate response to the over optimism of materialistic scientists of earlier decades.
Post modernism rejects all the characteristics of modernism but is unable to come up with better characteristics. Example: It criticises power structures of the ‘modern period' but is unable to establish safe parameters for the use of power by individuals and indeed, as it opens the door to varieties of experience and varieties of morals, it allows unfettered use of power that is simply abuse of power in another guise.
The writing off of meta-narratives (big stories) as answers, has an irrational base. For example, Christianity as a meta-narrative has been written off by some because it was seen as a cause of abuses of power in the Crusades or as part of the British Empire. But this has three faults: • a misunderstanding of the role of Christianity in both those historical periods (see later page on history) • an ignoring of the basic tenets of the Christian story and refusal to judge it on reasonable means of assessment • an ignoring of the effects of Christianity in bringing good into the world (see later pages)
An adequate response recognises the neutral possibility of science and technology being used for the good of mankind, but also that without some moral base that is fixed and stable, moral behaviour deteriorates in a downward ethical spiral.
c) The falsity by practice
Although there is theoretically a rejection of the optimism of modernity, nevertheless our society, and we as individuals within it, still rely heavily on science and technology and have high hopes of it.
The philosopher who scathingly speaks of the tools of modernity, is amazingly transformed into a believer in the science of medicine when Cancer or other serious bodily malfunction is diagnosed.
Similarly many an atheist is transformed on their death bed into a believer in God. Absolute truth suddenly becomes very real.
4. Why is Relativism Deception?
Answer:
a) The Theory Stated
‘Relativism' is a theory where right and wrong, good and bad, and true and false, vary from time to time, from place to place and from person to person.
In other words, behaviour, for instance, may be considered right in one situation at one time in one culture, and wrong at another time in another culture.
i.e. there are no absolute, no things that are fixed right or wrong.
Because as Christians we follow a God who declares that there are absolutes of right and wrong, this is an area of great importance for us to reflect upon.
b) The Falsity of the Theory
We repeat here what you will find on the previous page examining relativism:
As with so many of these philosophical arguments, they undermine themselves by definition. With Relativism there are a whole variety of ways it undermines itself:
i) Self-declaration Relativism maintains there are no absolute truths. However to maintain relativism is true is to declare it is absolute, i.e. it is self-defeating
ii) Reliance on absolutes Even more relativism depends on appealing to factual truths to prove itself – which is relying upon a standard that it denies.
iii) Generality If relativism is true absolutely for everyone, it is false by definition. If it is only relative, relative for who? Does it apply for me, for you, for who?
iv) Problems of Opposites A relativist may says, “Well God exists for you, but he doesn't for me.” He either does exist or he doesn't exist. They can't both be true. What the person actually means is, “You believe but I don't”, but belief is not the same as factual reality.
v) Problem of accusation A relativist accuses the Christian believing in absolutes of being narrow minded and bigoted. Yet in claiming that relativism is right, the relativist is doing exactly the same as the absolutist.
vi) By Application within Society For any society to have Laws, we have to maintain they will be applied to every citizen. We do not allow that one law can work for one person and another law for another person. We impose moral absolutes, at least as far as the Law goes! We also impose this in business practices, in science and technology and medicine. We only disregard it when we wish to act selfishly, but even then to disregard the requirements of society or of behaviour generally, means we bring upon ourselves a variety of unpleasant consequences.
vii) By Personal Application Every person without exception believes in certain absolutes. It is the only way we survive. You believe it is absolutely wrong for me to kill you or your family. There are a myriad ways that we will each apply this in our own lives for protection and for well-being. In practice we do NOT believe in relativism when it comes to the way you will behave towards me!
c) The Falsity by Practice
The vast majority of sane and rational people do NOT actually believe this in practice.
When it comes to personal survival virtually everyone will say it is wrong for you to try to kill me for no reason than you feel like it.
In fact you can add dozens of traditionally accepted moral standards to this one – it is wrong to rape me, steal my car, steal my identity etc.
Relativism is in fact used by people to excuse their anti-social behaviour or denounce faith communities who do openly espouse absolute values.
Christianity is opposed to relativism in that it declares that God, the Creator, has established objective truths and values on the basis of His design of the world.
The truth is that many people who hold to such a relativistic world view are actually quite unhappy about it.
In one of his somewhat lighter books, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century, Francis Schaeffer spoke of an occasion when he was speaking in Washington alongside a public speaker holding such relativistic views. The man spoke about restoring values to our modern society and when he finished a student stood up and asked him upon what base did he build his values. In Schaeffer's words, he “thought for a moment, looked down and said, ‘I don't know'.” Schaeffer added, “I have never felt so sorry for anybody in my life…. Here was a man crying to the young people for a return to values, but he offered nothing to build on.”
5. Why is Universalism Deception?
Answer:
a) The Theory Stated
‘Universalism' in this context is a view of religion that says that all world views, can be valid avenues of salvation and any religion claiming exclusivity is wrong.
As Christianity proclaims itself to be a unique world religion, for us who are Christians, this is a particularly important area to think about.
b) The Falsity of the Theory
This view of religion is often used as a means of levelling all religions and ultimately, taking away the authority from any and all of them.
It is based on an ignorance of different world religions. If one religion says one thing and another says the opposite, they both cannot be true.
i) The example of Christianity
For instance in the Christian faith, note the following unique claims:
Note again that these are unique claims, which is why the unbelieving world does not like them and why other religions do not like them.
ii) The Example of Islam
The example of the primary branches of Islam have been high-lighted in Iraq in the early years of the twenty-first century, as Sunni and Shi'a have fought for their brands of Islamic faith. To say that “any religion claiming exclusivity is wrong” fails to recognise that different religions and different branches of religion have claims to exclusivity. Here is the content of a note posted on one of our blogs from a Muslim: "The truth is that Jesus was not God; he never proclaimed as such, there are no direct quotes from him in this regards. God talked with Jesus and revealed His word on him, He chose Jesus his Messenger/Prophet/Messiah, Jesus was not a son of God. Jews did not believe that Jesus was a true Moshiach or Prophet of God and to prove that they tried to kill him by putting him on cross, Jesus became unconscious due to the injuries inflicted on him. He was delivered from cross alive and placed in a room like tomb where he was treated for the injuries. This was done secretly lest the Jews again torture him. Afterwards, he went to spread the gospel to the remaining ten tribes of the House of Israel, he died a natural death later at some point in the history. This is all truth in my opinion. Since Jesus never died on the Cross in the first place so there is no question of his resurrection or ascension to skies or heaven in the context of the incidence of crucifixion"
This is fairly standard Muslim teaching which is at complete odds with Christian teaching. As we said above exclusivity means both cannot be right and therefore any view that says “that all world views can be valid avenues of salvation” misses the differing claims of the various world religions.
The question for us then becomes on what grounds we assess different world religions, and that we'll cover on another page devoted to that subject.
c) The Falsity by Practice
The reality as we have demonstrated above is that where there are mutually exclusive religious beliefs, an informed individual recognises that and will choose ONE religion, even if it is the religion of atheism that worships self.
6. Why is Naturalism Deception?
Answer:
a) The Theory Stated
‘Naturalism' is a theory of the world that excludes the supernatural or spiritual
‘Materialism' is another way of expressing this. Materialism is the belief that nothing exists but matter and its movements. It includes the idea that consciousness and will are wholly due to material agency.
‘Humanism' is another expression of this which focuses on mankind to the exclusion of any divinity or spiritual power, to observe human needs and seek answers through rational human achievement.
As the Humanist manifesto 2000 declares: “The unique message of humanism on the current world scene is its commitment to scientific naturalism”
How will Humanism help the world? According to the 2000 global manifesto: “by goodwill and dedication a better life will be attainable by more and more members of the human community"
As we'll note below, that forgets the basic human condition and embarks on a flight of fancy or unbridled optimism that ignores the reality of humanity as a whole.
Because it is an outright denial of the supernatural it is an important area for Christians to consider.
b) The Falsity of the Theory
On a later page, 'Questions about the Meaning of Life', we consider the ONLY options that are open to us when considering the origins of the world. There we point out the inability of attributing ‘meaning' to a world without personality – such is the stance of Naturalism.
From a philosophical viewpoint, naturalism is self-defeating in that it claims that the way of assessing the truth about the world is through empirical science, but the starting point of empirical science is that only that which is ‘material' can be measured, and by definition ‘spiritual' cannot exist because it cannot be measured – but that is a case of prejudging the truth by setting fixed boundaries even before examining the possibilities.
c) The Falsity by Practice
Perhaps the best way to address this theory is to observe those who are its adherents.
i) Leaps of Faith required
On Page 6 of this series we quote Richard Dawkins writing in Unweaving the Rainbow. It bears repeating here in this context.
In his Forward he wrote, quoting his colleague Peter Atkins:
"We are children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is decay. At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe.”
Dawkins them commented:
“But such very proper purging of saccharine false purpose, such laudable tough-mindedness in the debunking of cosmic sentimentality must not be confused with the loss of personal hope.”
Even that statement about not wanting to lose personal hope, is a massive leap of faith away from the horrors that Naturalism brings. Dawkins affirmed a world of chaos and decay and corruption without purpose and yet, despite the logical conclusions of his readers which made him write that book, he leaps away into talk of hope when, in his system, there is no hope.
To try to persuade his readers who look to their guru for solace, that he is not merely a purveyor of a life that is empty and purposeless, he resorts to the use of poetry a number of times. It's a bit like Jesus' painted graves, adding on something to hide the death – but he's not very happy with it, which is perhaps why he keeps shouting and keeps crusading and keeps writing similar books to give a more favourable face to science and indirectly to atheism.
Not only is Richard Dawkins apparently not happy, neither are a number of other scientists – about him! In a letter to the London Times, published Feb. 15th 2007, four notable scientists bothered to write:
“We are scientists from different disciplines who …. completely disagree with Dawkins that science can rule out the supernatural. Our faith in the existence of the God revealed both in creation and in the person of Jesus is not diminished or contradicted in any way by our scientific understanding. On the contrary…. putting together science and faith leads to a fuller and deeper picture of the whole of reality .”
ii) Leaps of Optimism Required
When we start from human wisdom, we will find ourselves full of contradictions. The Humanist Manifesto II is an interesting document which, despite moving away from the “far too optimistic” statements of the Manifesto I in 1933, seems to be full of unclear optimism which is a jump of faith from the coldness of basic science. Consider the optimism of 1973:
“Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behaviour, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life."
Nearly forty years later those seem incredibly unrealistic.
iii) Confusions Required
Yet observe the contradictions of writing in this later manifesto:
“While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behaviour between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered "evil". Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilised society should be a tolerant one"
Within the sexual mandate is a blind optimism which bears little relationship to the real human race. In an attempt to sound free-thinking and reasonable there is the one hand a willingness to permit any sexual behaviour between consenting adults while on the other disparaging mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity.
What is the basis for making such distinctions? “Reasonable minds” and “critical intelligence”!
Yet they are honest enough to acknowledge that since Manifesto I in 1933, “In learning to apply the scientific method to nature and human life, we have opened the door to ecological damage, over population, dehumanising institutions, totalitarian repression, and nuclear and bio-chemical disaster."
Humanism, as a form of Naturalism and Materialism, while purporting to use the scientific method intelligently, is optimistic in the face of humanities inhumanity to man, and thus lacks any real credibility.
7. Why is Pluralism Deception?
Answer:
Similar to Universalism, pluralism is the wider belief that religions, world views, and truth claims can exist side by side as equals.
Because Christianity denies many of these other world views, it is important if we are Christians to consider these things.
Rather than repeat here what has been written extensively elsewhere on this site, we would simply like to refer you to the “Difficult Questions” section of the site to the question, “Aren't all Viewpoints Equally Valid” where we deal with the subject of pluralism in some detail and consider:
8. Why is Multiculturalism Deception?
Answer:
a) The Definition Stated
Multiculturalism is a product of the above ‘isms' that believes that every culture is equal and valuable.
The tool of multiculturalism is racism. The laws against racism demand that we think and treat all individuals the same regardless of colour, race or ethnic background. That in itself is satisfactory; what is not is the belief that what all cultures do is good.
From our perspective multiculturalism has been used as a tool to demean Christianity and especially cultures founded on Christianity. For this reason it is needs examining.
b) The Falsity of the Theory
Multiculturalism, as observed in Britain in the early part of the 21st century, demands that in our thinking we put all cultures on the same level.
We can see how our thinking has changed dramatically over the years from the following. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of 1974 (that I still have from my schooldays!) has nothing on ‘culture' beyond ‘tillage, rearing, production' of bees etc. The fact that it is a concise dictionary normally doesn't make it very different from a modern dictionary of 1993 but which now speaks extensively of intellectual human achievement, customs etc. by way of explaining 'culture'.
So culture is all about how different societies, think and act, the way they do things, and the customs they have. Immediately we recognise this, we realise that different ‘cultures' will have mutually exclusive customs and practices and therefore to talk about equality is in practice, meaningless.
In The Poverty of Multiculturalism by Patrick West (who does no favours for Christianity) he declares:
“The idea that no culture is better or worse than another ignores the reality of the human condition: that some societies are tyrannical, oppressive, violent, that they inflict pain on their members and deny them basic freedoms; while others are open, democratic, peaceable, permitting freedom of speech and of association."
Later under a chapter headed, ‘Three Multicultural Paradoxes' West writes:
“The statement that ‘All cultures are equal' raises the question: ‘Who says so? The problem with Hard Multiculturalism is that it is self-contradictory. First of all, it is a variation of the paradox of the Cretan Liar who said, ‘This statement is false'. If all truth is relative then why should we believe the person who utters the statement that all truth is relative…. Second, tolerance in the name of relativism has become its own intolerance. We are commanded to respect all differences and anyone who disagrees shall be shouted down, silenced or slandered as a racist. Everyone must be tolerant. And that's an order. Thirdly… postmodernists… often fail to recognise that cultural relativism was also devised in the West. No other culture has emerged with the theory that all cultures are relative.”
c) The Falsity of Practice
The absurdity of this is seen in the very characteristics of different cultures who wish to maintain their particular expressions of their homeland's life to the exclusion of others.
This is not to say that we don't accept their culture, and may even envy it (see the film, Big Fat Greek Wedding), but to speak of ‘equality' is meaningless.
This only has meaning and significance when we start taking note of cultural practices from other parts of the world with which we are uncomfortable.
For us in England, there has been a slowly rising tide of concern over arranged marriages in some Middle Eastern cultures, especially when the women concerned are given opportunity to express their side of such marriages where there is male violence and domination. Conflicts of culture have also arisen over the issues of women being completely veiled, a habit seen from the West as speaking of male domination and female subjugation.
The practice of the surviving wife being burnt on the funeral pyre of the deceased husband, as carried out in certain parts of the world, is conveniently forgotten by the advocates of multiculturalism.
Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler, in The New Tolerance, quote a policy by the New York State Regents as follows:
“Each student will develop an ability to understand respect, and accept people of different races; sex; cultural heritage; national origins; religion; and political, economic, and social background, and their values, beliefs and attitudes”
They then quote American Federation of Teachers president Albert Shanker who
“objected vehemently to this stated educational policy. He wrote: Do we really want [students] to “respect and accept the values, beliefs and attitudes” of other people, no matter what they are? Do we want them to respect and accept the beliefs that led Chinese leaders to massacre dissenting students in Tienanmen Square? And what about the values and beliefs that allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to pronounce a death sentence on Salman Rushdie? Is exposing unwanted children to the elements and certain death, a custom still widely practiced in some countries in Asia and Africa, to be respected and accepted because it is part of somebody else's culture? Is female circumcision? Must we respect the custom of forcing young children in the Philippines or Thailand to work in conditions of virtual slavery? And must we look respectfully on Hitler's beliefs and actions?”
You will see, if you followed the link under pluralism to the Difficult Questions, the ‘lie about equality'. The tough truth is that so often these things are simply used as tools against Christianity.
Listen again to Josh McDowell in The New Tolerance:
“For years I have puzzled over why, when artist Andres Serrano exhibited a crucifix, a Christian symbol, suspended in a jar of his urine, it was not only tolerated but was hailed as a work of art and funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, yet to similarly display a homosexual symbol in a jar of urine would be considered intolerant and decried as a hate crime. Or why City Hall of Jersey City, New Jersey, can officially commemorate Ramadan, the Hindu New Year, Greek Independence Day, and Dominican Flag-Raising Day (among many, many others, but (according to the SCLU and a federal court of appeals) cannot display a manger scene at Christmas.”
We recommend you get and read The New Tolerance .
9. Summary
On this page we have considered the following:
1. Jesus challenging the hypocrites or play actors of his day 2. Schaeffer's suggestion that we need to confront people with the conclusions of their presuppositions 3. Postmodernism – and its falsity 4. Relativism – and its falsity 5. Universalism – and its falsity 6. Naturalism – and its falsity 7. Pluralism – and its falsity. 8. Multiculturalism – and its falsity
In each case we have suggested that these are viewpoints used as tools by the enemy to discredit Christianity and as such we need to understand them and see why they are wrong, so that we may provide an intelligent answer to their propaganda. Each of the 'isms' is an example of deception - a view being put forward to demean and discredit Christianity, but which does not stand up itself. May we recommend you reread this page until you are quite familiar with its contents.
10. Questions
The purpose of these questions is to help you go back over the material and take it in. We suggest you highlight, copy and paste these questions and put them into your own word processing package and then alternate between them and the text and put your answers in your word processed page under each question. QUESTIONS: Intro. What assertion is made about the various ‘Isms' that society employs?
1. Relevance of Graves ? 1.1 What was one of the main problems Jesus confronted? 1.2 What did that word actually mean? 1.3 So what was the Pharisees' problem?
2. Hypocrisy 2.1 Presupposition – things assumed beforehand, on which people argue. In Schaffer's second quote, how did he say most people get these ‘starting assumptions'? 2.2 In his third quote, how does he say we should deal with people? 2.3 In his final quote how does he say he has seen naturalists (materialists) deal with this?
3. Post-Modernism 3.1 What three things has post-modernism done? 3.2 Why are these important to us? 3.3 Why is it that post-modernism is not a good substitute for modernism? 3.4 Why was Christianity written off as a meta-narrative? 3.5 Give two of the answers to that which stand out most clearly to you. 3.6 How do those who apparently espouse post-modernistic thinking show they don't completely follow it?
4. Relativism 4.1 How does relativism differ from Christianity? 4.2 Give two of the ways that relativism undermines itself that are most clear to you. 4.3 How do those who apparently espouse relativistic thinking show they don't completely follow it?
5. Universalism 5.1 How does universalism differ from Christianity? 5.2 Why is universalism patently false by definition? 5.3 How is it false by practice?
6. Naturalism 6.1 How does naturalism or materialism conflict with Christianity? 6.2 What is the major problem of naturalism when thinking of world origins? 6.3 In what 3 ways do its practitioners show it doesn't work?
7. Pluralism 7.1 How does Pluralism conflict with Christianity?
8. Multiculturalism 8.1 What is the philosophy of multiculturalism ? 8.2 How does reality show that multiculturalism doesn't work? 8.3 How does Patrick West open this up? 8.4 Give two examples of concerns about other cultures. 8.5 How does Albert Shanker open this up?
|