In this respect, differences among the religions take the form of basic disagreements over the nature of reality, how we have arrived at the current undesirable state of affairs, and how we can attain a more desirable state. Disagreements between Christianity and Theravada Buddhism, for example, over how to attain the desired goal—whether one should repent of one’s sins and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or follow the Noble Eightfold Path—are not disputes over the proper means to a common goal but rather grow out of radically different understandings of reality and thus different ends that are to be pursued. While there certainly are points of agreement among the religions, it is clear that at least some of the claims by the major religions are mutually incompatible. They might all be wrong, but they cannot all be correct.

It is sometimes said that this way of thinking about religious beliefs—that religious beliefs, like other propositions, are true or false, and that two contradictory beliefs cannot both be true—is merely a “Western” way of understanding religion and that “Eastern” religions do not approach religion in this manner. Rational approaches to religion that emphasize logical consistency depend upon “Western logic,” and other religions are not necessarily limited by such logical constraints. Therefore, it is said, the problem of conflicting truth claims is really a pseudo-problem, since it relies upon logical assumptions that not all religions share.

Although this perspective is fairly common, it is inadequate and very misleading. First, there is the empirical or factual question whether “Western thought” emphasizes rationality and logical consistency and whether “Eastern thought” rejects rational approaches to religion. What exactly is “Western” or “Eastern” thought? These are not monolithic entities but rather are broad abstractions that refer to large collections of people who display enormous diversity in thought. It is true that many people in Europe and North America do emphasize the importance of reason and logical consistency, but many others do not. Particularly in religious practice and the academic study of religion, many in the West today reject rational and logical principles, maintaining that religious “truth” somehow transcends rational categories. Similarly, there are religious traditions in Asia, such as certain forms of Hinduism, Buddhism (especially Zen), and Daoism, which do reject dependence on rational principles in the pursuit of religious “truth.” But many other religious traditions, especially in India and to some extent in China, are highly rational and emphasize the importance of logical consistency in belief.

Consider, for example, the comments of the Sri Lankan Buddhist scholar K. N. Jayatilleke. After arguing that the Buddha actually embraced the correspondence theory of truth, he asserts that for Buddhists inconsistency is a criterion of falsehood:

Although correspondence with fact is considered to be the essential characteristic of truth, consistency or coherence is also held to be a criterion. In contrast, inconsistency is a criterion of falsehood. In arguing with his opponents, the Buddha often shows that their theories lead to inconsistencies or contradictions, thereby demonstrating that they are false, using what is known as the Socratic method. . . . This means that truth must be consistent. Therefore, when a number of theories with regard to the nature of man and his destiny in the universe contradict each other, they cannot all be true, though they could all be false if none of them correspond with fact.²⁹

Similarly, the Japanese Buddhist scholar Hajime Nakamura claims,

Gotama was described as one who reasoned according to the truth rather than on the basis of the authority of the Vedas or tradition. Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism have accepted two standards for the truth of a statement: it must be in accord with the [Buddhist] scriptures and must be proved true by reasoning. No Buddhist is expected to believe anything which does not meet these two tests.³⁰

Thus, it simply is not the case that “Eastern thought” in general rejects rational principles such as the principle of non-contradiction.

But even if a particular tradition—perhaps Zen Buddhism or Daoism—does reject the principle of non-contradiction, it does not follow that such rational principles are merely Western and do not apply in other contexts. There is an important distinction between rejecting a belief or principle and refuting it. All kinds of beliefs have been rejected by people at one time or another. The issue is not whether a belief is rejected but whether it should be rejected. To refute a belief or principle is to show that it is false or at least that there are compelling reasons not to accept it as true. Although many people—both in the West as well as the East—reject the principle of non-contradiction in religion, no one has refuted the principle. It is impossible to refute the principle, since any attempt at refutation necessarily appeals to the very principle one is trying to refute.³¹ Any meaningful assertion about anything at all—including religious assertions—if intended to be true, makes implicit appeal to the principle by ruling out its negation as false.

6. Religious Exclusivism

The New Testament never suggests that Jesus is one among many possible saviors. The consistent witness of the Bible is that God has revealed himself in an utterly unique manner through the Scriptures and the incarnation and that Jesus Christ is the one Lord and Savior for all people. Such particularistic themes are often taken as evidence that Christianity is exclusive in ways that other religions—such as Hinduism or Buddhism—are not.

But it is important to recognize that other major religions, including the Indian religions, also have exclusivistic tendencies in that each regards its own perspective as distinctively true and thus superior to other alternatives. In both Buddhism and Hinduism, liberation is linked to a correct understanding of the nature of reality, and each religion rejects what it regards as false views on the grounds that they impede liberation. Buddhism, for example, claims to tell the truth about how things are, and other accounts that are incompatible with Buddhist teachings are dismissed as mistaken, resulting in ignorance and further suffering. For Buddhists, only Buddhism leads to release from the ignorance giving rise to suffering.

There have been vigorous debates among Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains (Jainism was another Indian religious system distinct from Hinduism and Buddhism) over rival religious claims.³² Shankara (d. 820), who shaped Advaita Vedanta Hinduism, forthrightly states, “If the soul . . . is not considered to possess fundamental unity with Brahman—an identity to be realized by knowledge—there is not any chance of its obtaining final release.”³³ In other words, only if one accepts the central teaching of Advaita Vedanta can one be liberated. Early Buddhists rejected Hindu assumptions about Brahman and the reality of enduring souls which reincarnate. Similarly, a text from the Jaina Sutras, the authoritative texts of Jainism, bluntly states,

Those who do not know all things by Kevala [the absolute knowledge sought by Jains], but who being ignorant teach a Law [contrary to Jain teaching], are lost themselves, and work the ruin of others in this dreadful, boundless Circle of Births. Those who know all things by the full Kevala knowledge, and who practicing meditation teach the whole Law, are themselves saved and save others.³⁴

In other words, those who accept Jain doctrine can be enlightened and liberated from rebirths; those who do not, cannot be enlightened.

Nor are these merely ancient perspectives. The Dalai Lama, for example, in responding to the question whether only the Buddha can provide “the ultimate source of refuge,” says,

Here, you see, it is necessary to examine what is meant by liberation or salvation. Liberation in which “a mind that understands the sphere of reality annihilates all defilements in the sphere of reality” is a state that only Buddhists can accomplish. This kind of moksha [liberation] or nirvana is only explained in the Buddhist scriptures, and is achieved only through Buddhist practice.³⁵

The theme in these passages is clear enough: Beliefs matter, and proper acceptance of the relevant teachings is essential for attaining liberation. Those who hold certain false beliefs cannot achieve liberation or enlightenment. Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains, of course, disagree on just which beliefs are false.