A Brief Logical Puzzle Or Two -- Just For Fun

Commonly enough one will hear people today aver that "all religions are basically the same," or dub them "equally valid." One can stir this mix a hundred and two ways. Others prefer, "They basically worship the same God, but by other names."

Rule number one, we have learned, when others wax academic on you regarding such topics is self-reference. Do most religions teach that all religions are equally valid? In a word or 3 -- NO WAY JOSE. This immediately throws the blocks to their suggestion, however they may wish to couch it.

If some religions agree with this proposition (and some do -- e.g. Atheism, Buddhism, some forms of polytheism), and other do not (and some do not, e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism), then not all religions can be correct on this point. Some are right and others mistaken. Question: Are religions which teach what is false 'equally valid" with one which teaches only the truth?

Does this even make sense in any other context? On a legal stand in court, are lies and truth "equally valid" or will one get you tossed in the "big house" for perjury and contempt of court while the other will not? Do scientists think all theories are equally valid -- trues ones, false ones -- whatever -- all the same? I think not.

Alrighty then. It is not the case that "all religions are basically the same, equally valid, or of the same stripe." How do I know this? I know this because the contradictory claims eliminate their own candidacy for plausible ideas.

So do not take their swipes lying down when clobberin' time invites your input. Get busy. Logic does not believe that all positions were created equal. Every proposition excludes others by the denials it implies. This is unavoidable because of the principle of non-contradiction (if A is true, not-A cannot also be true, at the same time, and when meant in the same respect). To Affirm "A" means you deny "not A." So does the guy pushing tolerance. He will not tolerate intolerance (that would be intolerable). So HOW is he different than the one he opposes? He wishes to be intolerant of different propositions than you. That is the only difference -- except for one. He HIDES his intolerance, pretending to tolerate all views, when in fact he hates all non-pluralist views (He is a hypocrite, pretending total tolerance, and managing only partial. I only promote partial tolerance - of some views and not others -- not total. I am not hypocritical in this regard. What you hear is what you get. Not so with the dogmatic pluralistas.

They will gun you down in the name of tolerance, if you dissent from their pluralism, calling you all manner of self-refuting epithet (without even noticing the great irony involved). You must help them here.

Also remember this simple tip: every logical postulate implies the denial of some other ones. This may not seem to profound in some cases, but it can surprise you in others.

For instance, consider the challenge to be "tolerant" of other people and their ideas.


This is nonsense masquerading as maturity. No person tolerates every idea. Just to get along in this world, we have to decide that "driving on the left side of the road is a worse idea than driving on the right (in the U.S.)." And most police agree because the contrary is messy and involves too much paperwork for starters.


No society tolerates ALL its members. We discriminate with extreme prejudice against thieves, DUI-mongers, arsonists, serial killers (not too many put this on their resumes), thugs, vandals, the libelous, and the like. In other words, we all -- every society -- criminalizes some behaviors and not others. We criminalize those forms of speech and action which we believe to be morally wrong or reprehensible. So the basis of law is ethics. Never forget this.


Moral values determine laws. This makes all legal codes inherently religious, refuting any silly notion of the absolute separation of Church and state. This is not just a bad idea; it is impossible.

So it is NEVER a question of tolerance v. no tolerance, or discrimination v. no discrimination. This is a very popular and goofy idea. Discrimination and intolerance are inescapable. It is only a question of WHICH behaviors and persons we OUGHT to outlaw (discriminate against with extreme prejudice) and which not.

This comes down to "your legal code (value system) versus mine." Value systems form a central part of one's worldview. This means that, personally, I'm liking the odds just about now. I am not smarter, faster or taller (necessarily) than any one reader. But the Law of the Lord is perfect, sufficient, altogether comprehensive and extraordinarily detailed. There is nothing like it anywhere.

This means that the Christian (transcendent) legal code has the upper hand in the debate in se. All we need to do is watch the sleight of hand the pagan philosophe needs to fool his audience, then call him on it, noting the points of arbitrary consideration (missing premisses and fallacies), and the cross-referencing difficulties his claims and their presuppositions necessarily entangle themselves in. Then we simply contrast the attendant strength of the biblical legal code.

And its game over. So why then should Christians ever "tolerate" what the Bible expresses forbids them to tolerate? It isn't like the contender with the biblical worldview has any ultimate answers or reasons for this. He is just making personal recommendations. But God has His own recommendations, and doesn't care about yours, mine or the other guys. We aren't omniscient, remember?

Thus, not all religions are looking equally anything. Non-Christian faiths are, however (ultimately) equally goofy. You can toss invalid forms of Christianity in the heap too -- Arianism, Arminianism (which has a very nice set of built in tangles), Romanism, Mormonism and the like. They all suffer from 3 basic problems each of which stems from the same fact -- they promote falsehood. These are meta-transcendental failures, transcendental failures, and dialectical tensions.

It sounds fancier than it really is. The point is the desire to tolerate all views amounts to a recommendation that we toss logic itself out the window of a moving car. The same is true for advocating "tolerance" in general without specifying WHICH behaviors or beliefs we ought to tolerate -- and more importantly -- WHY?

Let us try but one more. "There are no ultimate answers." Other forms include, "You don't know that for sure," or "I don't think anyone knows those sorts of things."

This one seems formidable, especially when pressed with some rhetorical force, as is often the case in academic settings. But it is a paper tiger. Think, first of all, about how many people have claimed to know with certainty that ultimate answers are knowable. For instance, the Bible says that God appeared to the prophets and apostles, and TOLD THEM the answers. He even made them write it down.

Now, if ultimate answers are THAT mysterious, how does the claimant know SO MUCH about just who does or does not know whether or not God appeared to them. He would have to be CERTAIN (to know that his claim is true) that God DID NOT IN FACT appear to the prophets -- else they would know what they claim.

In other words, the one who firmly asserts that ultimate answers are unknowable would have to be omniscient himself to know not only who did or did not know these things, but when it is or is not possible and why. He claims GRANDIOSELY when he claims to know so much about what others do or do not know. He wasn't even there when Moses allegedly received the ten words from God.

His is the fallacy of self-exception -- enjoining upon others a rule he dismisses from being applied to himself (arbitrarily). So when they confidently declare, "There's no way you could know that," don't back down. Counter-charge -- "Given YOUR VIEWS, there is no way you could know whether or not I could know that. You simply do not have the goods, if "no one has the goods." Second, only an omniscient Being of the kind you deny could know the truth of YOUR absolute (did I mention "sweeping") denial. Thus, what you deny to the biblical God, you reserve for yourself by implication. Now the cat is out of the bag. Agnosticism only replaces one God with another. The replacement? ME ME ME. Surprise! Everyone believes in a god. Some think it's the one pontificating against the biblical God, and others think it IS the God of the Bible.

But we knew that already didn't we -- since Romans 1 -- says that men enjoy "giving glory to the creature rather than the Creator [Who is blessed over all forever]."

But some people don't know when the suppressing game hasended, the music has stopped, and they remain chairless. You can help them figure it out with a few well-pointed questions and answers (above). But you might wish to say it a bit more polite than I have here, since you may have to run away when you gain the upper hand. I have noticed that refuting others does not easily lend itself to winning friends and influencing people (though if you reprove a wise man well, he will love you for it).

Choose your battles perspicuously. Sometimes, you just have to bite your tongue, foregoing to rebuke a mocker.

But know that all denials of any biblical truth -- because its affirmation is logically necessary -- will eliminate themselves. You can also cross-reference the denials of Scripture one to another to find that epistemological sins "so easily entangle," just as the author of Hebrews says. Sin creates tangles -- contradictions of the most basic kinds.

So keep your eye on the ball at all times, and clean house like Pacman when duty calls. You can do it. The strange part is that your opponent urgently wants to help you. Just listen and catalog the propositions. Compare them while he is going on about all the evil in the world. When he is done, and you are done calculating the tangles, begin listing them. Then he is REALLY done.

If they do not say enough to create all sorts of fun tangles, prod them with a few questions. What kind of world is this - what furniture does it have? How do we know the things we know? -- get him talking, and start scribbling in your mind. I assure you, he has not compared his statements one to another, or he would not be saying the things he is saying.

Just get your pacman on, and go to work. And be nice. Like Frank Burns said (of MASH fame) -- "It's nice to be nice to the nice" (Trivial, yes. But at least he was consistent).