Pluralism is anti-intellectual
Of today’s sacred cows, religious pluralism should be culled from the herd. Religious pluralism espouses getting along, but in an intellectually dishonest way.
Eboo Patel defines pluralism, saying, “To see the other side, to defend another people, not despite your tradition but because of it, is the heart of pluralism.” Put another way, if religious pluralism had a constitution, the preamble would say, “In order to advance the condition of mankind, we who constitute the faction of Religious Pluralists declare that we shall defend all religions from criticism because all religions have good in them!”
A religious pluralist in reality is someone so distracted by the fact that all religions have good in them that they ignore the fact that all religions (or at least all but one) must also have bad in them. More dangerously, religious pluralism becomes its own religion after a while. The belief that mankind must collectively huddle together to defend the doctrines of other people becomes more important to the pluralist than offering correct worship to God. Thus, the pluralist thinks or at least behaves as if people are greater than God.
Suppose pluralism did to science what it does to religion. At the hypothetical world meeting of Earth Scientists, the faction of scientists who believe the Earth is round would send their representative to the microphone. Likewise the Flat-Earthers would sent their representative to the microphone. Then in a show of solidarity the two would join hands and say, “we believe that what he have in common is more important then what divides us. Going forward, we hope that we will work together and not let our differences prevent us from realizing our full potential as fellow citizens of the human race! After all, to see the other side, ‘to defend another people, not despite your tradition but because of it,’ is the heart of earth science.” Meanwhile they would make no distinction about what is true regarding the shape of the Earth. Such an event would be laughable if it were not so serious, yet pluralists do this constantly.
To be sure, open discussion must be had regarding religion, but it must be done with the intention of discovering which religion is true and which religions are false. Pluralism frustrates the pursuit of the truth because it gives the impression that no one is wrong. The highest and most noble goal of the pluralist is to affirm people in their particular world view (unless their world view opposes pluralism).
Pluralism should be abandoned and replaced by a new normal. It should again be common for Catholics to say that they alone possess the means of salvation or for Jews to say it or Muslims to say it or for atheists to say that nothing happens. People should argue and debate about religion.